Is there reason to retake LSAT with 175? Forum

[Robert398]

Realistically, more details (GPA, UG, perceived strength of softs), schools to which you wish to be admitted, etc would be helpful... it might be a good idea before you retake to put yourself through some rigorous practice-testing, if you haven't already... allowing yourself less time on sections, noisy environment, etc, to see how that affects things... also keep in mind that some schools will possibly average a 175 and (let's say) a 177

[TheTopBloke]

Don't go to law school. Seek therapy.

[09042014]

175? You didn't even beat me, and I can barely read. RETAKE.

[Fevsi]

I've been thinking about it myself for a while. I was also scoring consistently in the high 170s, and forgot to take motrin from my car even though I knew I might get headache from not sleeping enough that night. So about 2/3 of the test I was in pain, and am pretty sure I could have scored higher if not for that stupid mistake. Thinking about it, though, one can realistically expect 178 when one is on top of the game, but the difference between 178 and 176 is pure luck, so I am not sure about retaking. There might be some other mistake/emotions/stupid proctor, and at this level, one small thing can have a huge impact. And if at all, a better score will only affect HY, from what I undestand how the #s game works in admissions. So if your GPA is great, enjoy Stanford, if not, CLS Does everyone agree that for CLS and below (in respect to Hamiltons and other fellowships) there is no difference between 175 and 178?

[HiLine]

Some responses to the original post seem to be poor efforts to impose personal opinions on other people's situations. An 178 is different from an 175, especially for law schools that take the highest scores. That said, the difference is minimal. On the other hand, there is a vast difference between 180 and 175. I'm open to counter-arguments here.
Now whether you can actually score 180, or even 178, on the next exam, depends on your ability and luck, and yours only. No one else can give you a prediction. If you think you can make it without sacrificing your precious time from more meaningful activities, go for it. Whether you can, again, depends entirely on your personal situation and luck. No one can give advice regarding this matter. Take the risk (of getting a lower score) in exchange for a 3-5 points increase if you want.

[Fevsi]

What would be your reason 180 is better than 175 for schools other than HY? I mean, schools only report 75%, and 175 is still above/at this level for all except HY. Or do you think there is actually any meaning to LSAT except numbers' game? Or that Columbia & NYU would dream to report some day 176 as their 75%? You don't want to claim that schools perceive a 180 candidate as smarter or potentially a better student than a 175, do you? Or to claim that a few points on LSAT have much significance beside schools' rankings?

[whitman]

I scored 175 on the Dec. 2009 LSAT. While I realize this is a strong score, it does not accurately represent my LSAT ability. The proctor ended the first section of the test ten minutes early. We got the time back after the break but the interruption cost me three points (so 175 instead of 178). LSAT is going to include a letter explaining the circumstances with my file. Nonetheless, I'm concerned that the three points could mean the difference between getting accepted into certain schools and receiving scholarship money at others. On practice tests, I was regularly scoring between 177-179.

In response to some of the more legit replies, here are more details: I have a GPA around 3.3, with the GPA from my junior/senior year about a full point higher than the GPA from my first two years. I have a couple of years of work experience and decent but not outstanding softs. I'm not trying to go to Harvard, Yale or Stanford, but I would like my options to include some of the schools that are ranked 5 through 15. In this context, is it likely that a 2-4 point score difference in the upper-170s will make a significant difference?

I'm just curious, but how do you know it cost you exactly three points?

[crm]

no.


/thread

[Bikeflip]

Retake.

No lie, the only reason I clicked this thread was to see if you posted in it.

[JazzOne]

Retake.

No lie, the only reason I clicked this thread was to see if you posted in it.

lol

Grades just came out, so I'm finally getting over that February debacle. I rebounded nicely though.

[superserial]

I have a GPA around 3.3

no reason to retake.

[TLS1776]

In response to some of the more legit replies, here are more details: I have a GPA around 3.3, with the GPA from my junior/senior year about a full point higher than the GPA from my first two years. I have a couple of years of work experience and decent but not outstanding softs. I'm not trying to go to Harvard, Yale or Stanford, but I would like my options to include some of the schools that are ranked 5 through 15. In this context, is it likely that a 2-4 point score difference in the upper-170s will make a significant difference?

In that case, I don't see any strong need to retake; unless you're absolutely sure you can do better, it doesn't seem worth the risk of some unpredictable test-center disaster that could lower your score (e.g. the guy sitting next to you having the flu). You may want to call up the admissions dean of the school you're interested in, though, and find out if you could get more money with a higher score. I know, for example, that some colleges have offered financial incentives for incoming freshmen to retake the SAT and get a higher score.

[Reinhardt]

Might be a good chance to do the "Apply -> June LSAT to get off waitlists" technique.

[MURPH]

I got a 170 and retook after months of teaching and intense prep. I got 175 the second time. There is just no way I could go through the prep again with no obvious reward for improving beyond the school's 75%. It is just too much effort.
If you think you can do improve your score without sacrificing your valuable time then go for it. But if taking the LSAT again means studying for 4-5 hours per day 5-6 days per week for two months then no way.

[danquayle]

I scored 175 on the Dec. 2009 LSAT. While I realize this is a strong score, it does not accurately represent my LSAT ability. The proctor ended the first section of the test ten minutes early. We got the time back after the break but the interruption cost me three points (so 175 instead of 178). LSAT is going to include a letter explaining the circumstances with my file. Nonetheless, I'm concerned that the three points could mean the difference between getting accepted into certain schools and receiving scholarship money at others. On practice tests, I was regularly scoring between 177-179.

In response to some of the more legit replies, here are more details: I have a GPA around 3.3, with the GPA from my junior/senior year about a full point higher than the GPA from my first two years. I have a couple of years of work experience and decent but not outstanding softs. I'm not trying to go to Harvard, Yale or Stanford, but I would like my options to include some of the schools that are ranked 5 through 15. In this context, is it likely that a 2-4 point score difference in the upper-170s will make a significant difference?

How are you so sure it cost you 3 points?


Edit: Didn't realize it was a redundant question, but was honestly surprised no one asked it on the first page.

[superserial]

with a 3.3 GPA there's no point in retaking. you're at or above the 75th percentile at every school that might accept you.

[09042014]

with a 3.3 GPA there's no point in retaking. you're at or above the 75th percentile at every school that might accept you.

A 180 might get him into CCN.

The upside is MVPNC don't care about retakes so it won't hurt if he does worse.

[brit123]

quote]

How are you so sure it cost you 3 points?

.[/quote]

I was interrupted on the logic games section, the one section of the test that in practice tests I always answered perfectly and generally in less than 30 minutes. When the proctor called the 5-min. warning (after 20 mins.), I was near the end of the third game. I thought I'd been working at a good pace. Startled, I jumped to the fourth game, leaving the last two questions of the third game unanswered. (Admittedly, not the best strategy, but at this point I didn't realize the proctor had called time early). I raced through the last game in five minutes, marking up the blank space (necessary for logic games), and filled in random bubbles for the last few questions. When we were allowed to go back to the game for ten minutes, I didn't have time to re-read the rules for two games and go through the problems. The questions I answered incorrectly were the ones that I scrambled to answer in the last few minutes of the extra time we received. I debated for a month cancelling my score and retaking in February (an option offered by LSAC), but ultimately decided to get my score.

[HiLine]

What would be your reason 180 is better than 175 for schools other than HY? I mean, schools only report 75%, and 175 is still above/at this level for all except HY. Or do you think there is actually any meaning to LSAT except numbers' game? Or that Columbia & NYU would dream to report some day 176 as their 75%? You don't want to claim that schools perceive a 180 candidate as smarter or potentially a better student than a 175, do you? Or to claim that a few points on LSAT have much significance beside schools' rankings?

Unless your undergrad GPA is 3.9 or the like, a 5 points increase in the LSAT will give you a better chance at the rest of T-14. 5 points difference in the LSAT is too big to be merely statistical. It shows something.
Especially when you have reached the maximum mark, you are at a different level. Your LSAT skills have surpassed the test's requirements; it seems like you are skillful beyond measurability. If they could give a score of 181, you might have earned it. Yes, this type of person is better at acing the LSAT than those who score 175 or lower. Whether the LSAT score reflects the test-taker's ability as a law student is not discussed here. We are talking about admission, of which the LSAT is one of the essential factors.

[Fevsi]

My point was that an LSAT higher than 175 will not improve the school's rankings for schools other than HY, so there is no sense for them to make a distinction. You seem to believe that the LSAT score is valued by adcoms for reasons other than improving the school's reported numbers. There are very tangible benefits for schools when their reported numbers improve, so my point stands. Where is your proof that LSAT is interesting for adcoms for anything else except this? You think admissions dean from Columbia will say "this person with 175/3.9 will improve our rankings more than the person with 180/3.89, but the latter is clearly brighter, because to score 180 is exceptional. So we will accept the 180 person." You think this is realistic? Please prove it.

[Reinhardt]

http://berkeley.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/0809/

[HiLine]

Oh yes, accepting a student with 180 LSAT will improve the school's reported scores more than accepting a 175 LSAT. This is pure math. Does this argument follow your point?
We are not talking about 175/3.9 vs 180/3.89 but 175/3.9 vs 180/3.9. Given a fixed GPA, which happens to be the case, a higher LSAT score will make the student a stronger candidate. Did I say anything about brightness? If you are in doubt, the link posted right above hopefully will dissolve your doubt.

[vampy]

There is a huge difference between a 175 and a 180. At most schools, thats about the same as increasing your GPA by roughly ~0.5. And to those who say the difference between a 175 and a 180 is mostly luck, that is only true on an individual basis. If you average 177 on PTs then that is luck. But remember, there are plenty of people who are PTing at 172 and get a 175 based on luck. They don't know which you are, so they therefore grade all 175s equally. If you get a 180 on a retake you have put yourself beyond the luck factor for lots of people and have helped yourself dramatically.

---
I was in almost the exact same boat as you -- 3.3 GPA and 174 LSAT in DEC 09 while I was PTing 178 (my first PT ever was 175). I retook this february and felt much better about the test. I'm pretty confident I got 177+. I didn't even waste time studying so the investment was tiny.

Now, from the admissions office perspective, any higher score is better, even a single point. Obviously the more points the better. ALSO, most schools weight the higher score more than the lower score. Given the difference in weighting, it seems worth it to retake an LSAT even if you have only a 50% shot of improving. Since your natural bell curve appears to be 3 or 4 points higher than what the test shows, I cannot see why you would not retake it. Even better, given the compromised test conditions of your first test, it is possible that schools will put an even higher weight on your retake than they usually would.

Lastly, don't forget that in addition to improving admissions chances at every school, a higher LSAT increases the probability of receiving a merit based scholarship.

[js87]

if you retake the test you can turn things around in a complete 360 and head in the direction of perfection.

just make sure to study harder this time or it will be a waste.

maybe go and try [strike]testmasters[/strike] KAPLAN courses to help you improve.

A 360* turn points you in your original direction


Don't retake.

[macaulian]

Rather than bitterly yelling "TROLL!!!!! OMGZ BAN PLZ!", I hope this post will be a bit more constructive:


I consistently PT'd at 178-179 (with a 180 once or twice and a 172 once). Personally, I would retake anything 174 or below. I think 175 is right at that line where it depends on your GPA and how that GPA relates to the medians at your target schools.

If the GPA is below median (and definitely if it is below the 25th percentile), it would certainly help to have a LSAT score above the 75th. Then again, the 175 is above the 75th at almost every school. It depends on which schools you are aiming for (i.e. how badly you want to go HYS).

Personally, I can see scenarios where retaking the 175 makes sense. You have to weigh the risks/rewards and decide for yourself. Nobody online can make the decision for you.

just saying, I bet everyone here can tell you exactly how many times they 180ed on a practice, and the difference between 1 and 2 is um, pretty big, so why the discrepancy?