Doing well in law school after getting a sub 160 LSAT Forum

[bk1]

Of all of the myths propagated on TLS, the belief that LSAT's are truly indicative of aptitude for law (study or practice) is the most misleading and destructive.

TLS doesn't propagate this myth at all.

You are a fucking awful troll.

[niederbomb]

Of all of the myths propagated on TLS, the belief that LSAT's are truly indicative of aptitude for law (study or practice) is the most misleading and destructive.

Even if it's a "myth," if it convinces fewer people to go to law school, then it is neither harmful nor destructive because fewer people going to law school means more job options for me.

[JPS123]

LSAT - Low 150's

TTT (1L) - Top 2%

TTT --> MVP (Transfer) (Top 25%)

[flcath]

Our #3 last year had an LSAT in the mid 150's.

She's clerking with a feeder CoA judge now.

[risktaker]

Our #3 last year had an LSAT in the mid 150's.

She's clerking with a feeder CoA judge now.

Good stuff!

[risktaker]

LSAT - Low 150's

TTT (1L) - Top 2%

TTT --> MVP (Transfer) (Top 25%)

Congrats!

[lawschoolgrapedme]

I got a 159 LSAT. I go to a school tied for 23rd, with a median of 164. I just finished 1l in the top 3%. I'm sorry I didn't spend $$$ on a prep class to do better, but unfortunately neither of my parents is a lawyer.

[emciosn]

Your LSAT (along with your GPA) affects the caliber of school you attend, and the caliber of your competition. If you do well in LS after getting a comparatively low LSAT aren't you doing well as compared to other students with comparatively low LSATs (on average)? You are doing better than other people with similarly measured aptitude for LS, not better than a group of people who have (on average) a higher measured aptitude. I did see above that someone transferred to Mich and did well too (although not as good as at the previous school) so that would seem to rebut my argument. Just my thought, I think the LSAT is maybe given too much weight but I was a high LSAT splitter so I don't lose too much sleep over it...

[northwood]

THe LSAT helps open the doors to law school for you ( and get some scholarship money). Once you are there- its use is no longer needed, and its totally up to you to do well. Don't worry about it.

[harborleaguemvp]

LSAT - 155 presumably the lowest at Boalt
TTTT - Top 2%
Boalt - Conservatively top 20%

[EliHBCU]

Enough of the retake posts. Only post if you are going to say something useful. I got the same exact LSAT score a few times even though I was PT'ing in a higher range. It just did not work out for me on test day. I worked hard and was not a slacker. A year and half of my life was wasted on the LSAT. I am ready to move the f on.

So move on. And move up.

I can tell you that you can absolutely make a sub-160 LSAT score and do very very very well. I graduated with a student who scored 168 and lost all their scholarships by the end of 1L year because they didn't do well in school.

I, myself, did not score higher then a 160 and (although I had other options) decided to attend a T4 school because the price was better for me. (And while I'm sure I'll get haters for my T4 status, I frankly don't give a damn.) I loved my school, was a board member on Law Review, got scholarships, and graduated with a couple of jobs offers (which is more then I can say for most). Don't worry about your score, pick the school that's right for you, work hard, and be successful. The LSAT's not that important.

[09042014]

1) LSAT is not a judge of how well you'll do at all law schools

2) LSAT difference in the small the moderate range mean nothing

3) LSAT difference in the moderate to high range still doesn't mean all that much.

4) There are outliers

5) Transfers don't do as well as TLS claims they do

6) even if they did, they are highly biased sample

7) Retake

[Heartford]

I read that Yale excepted a 152 a couple of years ago. Maybe we should hunt down and ask that person.

Yale excepts 152s by the hundreds every year. They very rarely accept one though.

Seriously though, OP: I got a 159 on my first shot and I just finished 1L in the top 10%. I had a rough time with the LSAT because of nerves but I had plenty of time in Law School to outgrow my nervousness before exam time came. Best of luck to you.

P.S. for some people, reading Arrow's guide or GTM or any number of other books was helpful. I found that supplements, not-actually-reading-the-cases, and other popular TLS techniques didn't work for me. I did pretty well in law school by just doing all the work I was assigned, going to class, paying attention, and studying for the exams. I'm not saying this to brag or flame- just trying to say that doing well in law school doesn't have to be this mystical, complex, secret thing- it's possible to succeed by just doing what your professors expect of you.

[leche]

Man am I glad I found this thread. I didn't think TLS was capable of pep talks but this comes pretty close.

I am in the same boat - two 159's and ready to move the f on. I'm sick of everyone insisting I retake because the schools I can get into with that score "aren't worth going to." I know I am a better student than standardized test taker and I can get to the top of my class.

[Total Litigator]

Man am I glad I found this thread. I didn't think TLS was capable of pep talks but this comes pretty close.

I am in the same boat - two 159's and ready to move the f on. I'm sick of everyone insisting I retake because the schools I can get into with that score "aren't worth going to." I know I am a better student than standardized test taker and I can get to the top of my class.

Reading comprehension Fail.

[Heartford]

.

Seriously though, OP: I got a 159 on my first shot and I just finished 1L in the top 10%.

...just to clarify.

[Stringer Bell]

Some people will do extremely well with a sub 160, the odds are that it won't be you. I think some people are a little too passionate about stepping on other people's dreams (there's a psychological component to it). If someone has an improbable goal, I can tell them it's probably not going to happen. What they do with that advice is up to them.

TLS advice is usually based on expected outcomes. That should be pretty evident. Not to be a dick, but it's not surprising that the people that bitch about the negative nature of this site and don't understand the concept of probability didn't do better on the LSAT.

[leche]

.

Seriously though, OP: I got a 159 on my first shot and I just finished 1L in the top 10%.

...just to clarify.

Ok sorry guess I should have said "similar boat" instead of "same boat"...didn't realize my wording would be so heavily scrutinized, sheesh

[Heartford]

.

Seriously though, OP: I got a 159 on my first shot and I just finished 1L in the top 10%.

...just to clarify.

Ok sorry guess I should have said "similar boat" instead of "same boat"...didn't realize my wording would be so heavily scrutinized, sheesh

Sorry if it seemed harsh- it's just that I didn't want to convey from my post that I was "ready to move on" after a 159- I retook for a better score, as I would advise anyone with a 159 to do. I also agree with the conventional wisdom that there is absolutely no way for you to know that you are a "better student than standardized test taker and [you] can get to the top of your class." Law school grades are unpredictable, uncontrollable, and sometimes totally arbitrary. You can control your LSAT and therefore control, to some extent, which school you can attend. If you think you'll have the same level of control over your class rank once you get there, you are incorrect.

Keep in mind that this is coming from a top 10% student- if I could claim that my good performance was entirely because of my superior student skills, I would. But I can't, because that's not how it works.

[leche]

.

Seriously though, OP: I got a 159 on my first shot and I just finished 1L in the top 10%.

...just to clarify.

Ok sorry guess I should have said "similar boat" instead of "same boat"...didn't realize my wording would be so heavily scrutinized, sheesh

Sorry if it seemed harsh- it's just that I didn't want to convey from my post that I was "ready to move on" after a 159- I retook for a better score, as I would advise anyone with a 159 to do. I also agree with the conventional wisdom that there is absolutely no way for you to know that you are a "better student than standardized test taker and [you] can get to the top of your class." Law school grades are unpredictable, uncontrollable, and sometimes totally arbitrary. You can control your LSAT and therefore control, to some extent, which school you can attend. If you think you'll have the same level of control over your class rank once you get there, you are incorrect.

Keep in mind that this is coming from a top 10% student- if I could claim that my good performance was entirely because of my superior student skills, I would. But I can't, because that's not how it works.

Guess I should have quoted the OP too because that's the boat to which I was referring...I obviously wasn't ok with a 159 either which is why I took it again. But after 6 months and no improvement (at least not improvement that counts, i.e. my reported scores) I am feeling the need to move on. I am most likely taking a third time, but it's not something I'm excited about. This thread was encouraging because if I get another 159 I'd like to think I can still be ok and not have to completely give up on my dreams here, but thank you for running yet another hopeful thread on this board into hopeless pessimism.

Also, I know law school is a completely different beast than undergrad, but I would like to point out my 3.9 gpa in response to the claim that it's impossible to know you're a better student than standardized test taker.

[Blessedassurance]

Anyone out there who would like to share their story about doing well in law school despite having a sub 160 LSAT? Trying to find out if the LSAT was not a good predictor of law school success for numerous people. Thanks in advance.

I read in your profile, you were considering Medical school. If you can get into Medical School, I recommend going.

[3ThrowAway99]

LSAT actually is predictive of relative 1L success to a considerable degree (which is why it is in fact the most important factor to law schools in making admissions decisions). What you have in this thread are the exceptions to the rule, at least if you are talking about students with sub-160 LSATs going to a school where the median is, let's say 165+ (IMO). In cases that the person went to a school where the median is below 160, the apparent reproof of LSAT predictive validity is not necessarily even called into question, because the below 160 people at those schools who kicked butt could have been 75th%tile going in with a 158/159 etc.

Obviously the LSAT has limited predictive validity, and clearly people with relatively low LSATs at the school they go to (eg below 25th%tile) can do very well. But if you have someone at 75%tile or higher at a particular school v. someone with 25%tile or lower for the same school who are competing for grades at the same school, my money would be on the 75th% student if I were a betting man (lol). Also, don't count on hard work getting you top grades, although it can certainly help.

[Heartford]

Guess I should have quoted the OP too because that's the boat to which I was referring...I obviously wasn't ok with a 159 either which is why I took it again. But after 6 months and no improvement (at least not improvement that counts, i.e. my reported scores) I am feeling the need to move on. I am most likely taking a third time, but it's not something I'm excited about. This thread was encouraging because if I get another 159 I'd like to think I can still be ok and not have to completely give up on my dreams here, but thank you for running yet another hopeful thread on this board into hopeless pessimism.

Also, I know law school is a completely different beast than undergrad, but I would like to point out my 3.9 gpa in response to the claim that it's impossible to know you're a better student than standardized test taker.

I didn't mean to convey that it's impossible to be a good student and a bad tester- I was saying that it's impossible to know that you will be in the top of your class. I don't feel like I'm being pessimistic- I'm just trying to help. Best of luck.