ITE, yes, you absolutely must retake! Forum

[Gail]

Bet you're a big fan of normativism.

I mean. I get it. And I'm waning between doing the same thing (retaking and taking a year or two off). I'm visiting schools in the Spring and my decision will be based on how well they click with my personality.

I guess it is a lot of opinion about what should and ignores what is. I acknowledge that. I shouldn't have posted this. It just sounds like preaching. But I won't lie. I get a little irritate about calling any school after WUSTL a TTT toilet not worth going to under any circumstances.

[traehekat]

I get a little irritate about calling any school after WUSTL a TTT toilet not worth going to under any circumstances.

To be fair, it's not that schools outside of the T14 or T30 or wherever you want to draw the line are "not worthy." Legal education is just as bad at TTTs as it is at T14s. They all teach the same things using the same outdated methods and the same casebooks. It's just the fact there are less legal jobs out there than there are law students, and so employers have to filter some students out of the running somehow. The schools aren't worth going to not because you'll receive any worse of an education, but because employers simply don't hire from them as much as top ranked schools.

If employers didn't care where you went to school, I would have just as soon said to hell with the LSAT and gone to Santa Clara or something.

[Mr.Binks]

I get a little irritate about calling any school after WUSTL a TTT toilet not worth going to under any circumstances.

To be fair, it's not that schools outside of the T14 or T30 or wherever you want to draw the line are "not worthy." Legal education is just as bad at TTTs as it is at T14s. They all teach the same things using the same outdated methods and the same casebooks. It's just the fact there are less legal jobs out there than there are law students, and so employers have to filter some students out of the running somehow. The schools aren't worth going to not because you'll receive any worse of an education, but because employers simply don't hire from them as much as top ranked schools.

If employers didn't care where you went to school, I would have just as soon said to hell with the LSAT and gone to Santa Clara or something.

+1

[Gail]

I get a little irritate about calling any school after WUSTL a TTT toilet not worth going to under any circumstances.

To be fair, it's not that schools outside of the T14 or T30 or wherever you want to draw the line are "not worthy." Legal education is just as bad at TTTs as it is at T14s. They all teach the same things using the same outdated methods and the same casebooks. It's just the fact there are less legal jobs out there than there are law students, and so employers have to filter some students out of the running somehow. The schools aren't worth going to not because you'll receive any worse of an education, but because employers simply don't hire from them as much as top ranked schools.

If employers didn't care where you went to school, I would have just as soon said to hell with the LSAT and gone to Santa Clara or something.

I get that. I do. But I don't think that if you go to say... UW-Madison (#35) that means that you've made a poor decision employment wise. You haven't. It's wrong to say that you have. Obviously you aren't competing for V5 jobs, but you can have a good career making a decent salary (45k is a good salary for a single person age 25).

It's wrong to say that the issue is that law schools automatically suck after Fordham.


There are other issues in question. To me, the main problem with America's law schools aren't that there are too many of them, it's that they all cost way too much.

If every law student were graduating paying only 70k in debt, it would be a fine deal even at the lower end of the pay scale.



Should there be a good slashing of about half of America's law schools (including some in the top 100), yeah. But if law schools didn't charge up wards of 50k for a year's worth of case study, what would you really have to complain about?

[IAFG]

UWisconsin at sticker is a bad investment for the majority of Wisconsin students.

[traehekat]

I get a little irritate about calling any school after WUSTL a TTT toilet not worth going to under any circumstances.

To be fair, it's not that schools outside of the T14 or T30 or wherever you want to draw the line are "not worthy." Legal education is just as bad at TTTs as it is at T14s. They all teach the same things using the same outdated methods and the same casebooks. It's just the fact there are less legal jobs out there than there are law students, and so employers have to filter some students out of the running somehow. The schools aren't worth going to not because you'll receive any worse of an education, but because employers simply don't hire from them as much as top ranked schools.

If employers didn't care where you went to school, I would have just as soon said to hell with the LSAT and gone to Santa Clara or something.

I get that. I do. But I don't think that if you go to say... UW-Madison (#35) that means that you've made a poor decision employment wise. You haven't. It's wrong to say that you have. Obviously you aren't competing for V5 jobs, but you can have a good career making a decent salary (45k is a good salary for a single person age 25).

It's wrong to say that the issue is that law schools automatically suck after Fordham.


There are other issues in question. To me, the main problem with America's law schools aren't that there are too many of them, it's that they all cost way too much.

If every law student were graduating paying only 70k in debt, it would be a fine deal even at the lower end of the pay scale.



Should there be a good slashing of about half of America's law schools (including some in the top 100), yeah. But if law schools didn't charge up wards of 50k for a year's worth of case study, what would you really have to complain about?

45k/yr job isn't bad for a single 25 year old, except when you just sunk 3 years $150,000 into a degree to get that job. I assume you know that though, since you pointed out the problem is that schools cost too much. Certainly agree that is one of the 2 or 3 HUGE issues with what is wrong with law school, that's for sure.

Also, don't assume that if you go to Wisconsin and miss out on the big law train you just automatically get some job that pays 45k. MAYBE half of the class will end up with something like that, the rest will end up with something paying much less or with nothing at all. Not to pick on Wisconsin or anything, this is true of pretty much all the Big Ten T1s (and other schools as well). And yeah, for someone who grew up in Wisconsin, wants to practice in Wisconsin, and receives a full tuition scholarship, then sure Wisconsin is a fine choice.

Last thing: I'm not sure if this is how the OP came off, but I'm not saying that you shouldn't go to a school if it isn't T14 or T20 or T30 w/ full ride or something. That's a separate debate. My point is just that in pretty much every case you shouldn't be applying to schools until you have maxed your LSAT. Once if you have done that, then you have the debate about whether you should go or not. But just because Wisconsin might not be the worst option out there doesn't mean you shouldn't try to get the highest LSAT score you can.

[ahnhub]

Eh. I got a 170 once. It was a point lower than my PT average. Got into all of MVPBDCNG and NYU. I guess 5 more points mighta gotten me Harvard, but getting 175 woulda been like hitting the lottery for me. I do think most of us have natural limits.

[benburns214]

Eh. I got a 170 once. It was a point lower than my PT average. Got into all of MVPBDCNG and NYU. I guess 5 more points mighta gotten me Harvard, but getting 175 woulda been like hitting the lottery for me. I do think most of us have natural limits.

Don't feed the trolls ahnhub.... it makes them angry

[traehekat]

Eh. I got a 170 once. It was a point lower than my PT average. Got into all of MVPBDCNG and NYU. I guess 5 more points mighta gotten me Harvard, but getting 175 woulda been like hitting the lottery for me. I do think most of us have natural limits.

Don't feed the trolls ahnhub.... it makes them angry

Whether or not people actually have a natural limit, I HIGHLY doubt anyone would discover without taking the LSAT multiple times. I'm not talking about spending your entire life buried in LSAT prep, I'm talking about less than a year.

[splitbrain]

Just my $0.02 but the aversion to retaking is probably just from the fact that retaking was not an option until fairly recently. I'm sure there will be gradual change, especially from conversations like this; thanks for posting.

Edit: especially when you see someone with a 3.8-4.0 and ~160...

[Tiago Splitter]

Eh. I got a 170 once. It was a point lower than my PT average. Got into all of MVPBDCNG and NYU. I guess 5 more points mighta gotten me Harvard, but getting 175 woulda been like hitting the lottery for me. I do think most of us have natural limits.

Meh. I got a 153 once. Got in to all of my target schools. 153 was better than any of my PTs so I'm sure it was the highest I'd get. Glad I didn't retake.

[ahnhub]

Eh. I got a 170 once. It was a point lower than my PT average. Got into all of MVPBDCNG and NYU. I guess 5 more points mighta gotten me Harvard, but getting 175 woulda been like hitting the lottery for me. I do think most of us have natural limits.

Meh. I got a 153 once. Got in to all of my target schools. 153 was better than any of my PTs so I'm sure it was the highest I'd get. Glad I didn't retake.

For a second I thought you were talking about yourself. (If you are well, props)

I think most people retake because they feel they have the capability to do significantly better. Rolling the dice three times even if you get lucky the first time is a strategy, and it has the possibility of getting you something in the end. But if you have solid goals and you hit them the first time, it is absolutely reasonable for you to move on.

[20130312]

Eh. I got a 170 once. It was a point lower than my PT average. Got into all of MVPBDCNG and NYU. I guess 5 more points mighta gotten me Harvard, but getting 175 woulda been like hitting the lottery for me. I do think most of us have natural limits.

Meh. I got a 153 once. Got in to all of my target schools. 153 was better than any of my PTs so I'm sure it was the highest I'd get. Glad I didn't retake.

For a second I thought you were talking about yourself. (If you are well, props)

I think most people retake because they feel they have the capability to do significantly better. Rolling the dice three times even if you get lucky the first time is a strategy, and it has the possibility of getting you something in the end. But if you have solid goals and you hit them the first time, it is absolutely reasonable for you to move on.

I think he was pointing out that your conclusion was silly by using an extreme example.

Yeah, flaw questions!

[princeR]

For a second I thought you were talking about yourself. (If you are well, props)

I think most people retake because they feel they have the capability to do significantly better. Rolling the dice three times even if you get lucky the first time is a strategy, and it has the possibility of getting you something in the end. But if you have solid goals and you hit them the first time, it is absolutely reasonable for you to move on.


Personally, my first time I was vastly unprepared, in that I hadn't even take a full length timed test and briefly looked over the Princeton Review Cracking the LSAT. I had no idea what the LSAT was and was told to ask my pre-law advisor about it and he told me that I didn't need to study and that he took it hungover and got 98th percentile (yes, he also took it about 40 years ago), not to mention my family really pushed me to taking it. My second time around I was decently prepared and was actually going to settle with my PT average of 163. My study habits were terrible and consisted or taking a PT every day and just hoping that I would improve the next day. So my scores are 152-159. I consider my 2nd attempt my actual first time taking the test, so needless to say I am going all in this next time and am not going to limit myself at all. Pretty much, I am just trying to point out that there are a lot of different circumstances that play a huge part into a persons score. I wish I would have done my homework about the LSAT. It also didn't help that all of my roomates were taking the GMAT at the same time so I kind of assumed I could study like you do for the GMAT... not very much. I think my app is gonna look pretty boss when it shows 152-159-175.

[thelawyler]

Just bumping this because a friend of mine told me LSAT scores came out recently for December. OP is absolutely correct for the vast majority of people. Even if you feel that you've relatively maxed it out, studying for an extra 40 hours for potentially 50k in extra scholarship money simply because you scored 2-3 points higher on the LSAT is well worth it. Your hourly wage is in the hundreds per hour. Do it.

[boblawlob]

Just a question to throw out there to anyone who wants to response: When should I STOP retaking the test as to stop myself from becoming a career LSAT taker? Do not answer "only stop when you get to 170+."

[dingbat]

Does anyone remember the article that calculated the present value of an additional point on the LSAT? It'd be great to link in here

[smaug_]

Just a question to throw out there to anyone who wants to response: When should I STOP retaking the test as to stop myself from becoming a career LSAT taker? Do not answer "only stop when you get to 170+."

If you've done every practice test and properly prepared, you should probably stop. In theory, I think most people could handle the LSAT in a single try. I just don't think most people do enough before they sit for the test.

The other example would be if someone tested way below her practice average. If you know you can hit 175+, you shouldn't settle for less.

I also don't understand what is wrong with saying "only stop when you get to 170+." Hell, I firmly believe that the vast majority of people on this website can hit 175+. The LSAT really isn't that hard.

[boblawlob]

I also don't understand what is wrong with saying "only stop when you get to 170+." Hell, I firmly believe that the vast majority of people on this website can hit 175+. The LSAT really isn't that hard.

I agree with you too. But retaking the LSAT 6 times for that 170 sounds a bit ridiculous (for me at least).

[patentlybored]

The amount of people taking the LSAT dropped significantly. Are you some sort of LSAT salesman trying to scare people into taking it again?

If you get a 168 - 175, where you'd say you should retake for scholarship increase, you're most likely aiming for T14. T14 schools rarely give much merit aid. Nearly all of it is need based and if it is merit aid, it goes to those who have 179/180 and 3.98/4.0. So retaking 168 - 175 would be a waste of time if your goal was to get more money, unless you want to drop out of T14, which no one would want to do.

If you get a 168 - 175, retaking just to increase your chances of getting into your first choice law school isn't a good idea either. Studies show that those at 168 or above only increase by about 2, and that is only for people who increased (not counting those who stay the same or decrease). To take a risk for an extra 2 points when you could get the same score or even lower isn't smart.

I think it's good that there are people like who hold this opinion. They won't take the scholarship money away from us logical people.

[suralin]

Does anyone remember the article that calculated the present value of an additional point on the LSAT? It'd be great to link in here

This? http://www.econ.wisc.edu/workshop/selective.pdf

Not ITE though.

On page 21:
"Column 1 of Table 10 shows that, given these assumptions, our lawyer's expected income with
her LSAT of 163 is just over $4 million if she does not discount future income streams, $2.4 million
if she discounts at 5%, and $1.54 million if she discounts at 10%. Column 2 shows that our
lawyers chances of getting into a Top 10 or Top 20 school and, therefore, her income are enhanced
significantly if she can increase her LSAT scores by 5 points. If she does not discount, five LSAT
points are worth over $700,000 in expectation and nearly $300,000 if she discounts by the full 10%.
The increases are smaller ($200,000 without discounting and $80,000 with 10% discounting) for a
further increase in LSAT scores from 168 to 173. Even taking our lowest estimates and allowing for
some noise in our estimates, these estimates suggest that such actions as LSAT preparation classes,
spending time refining admissions essays, and even studying hard in relevant undergraduate classes
in hopes of improving grades all have a significant positive return for aspiring lawyers."

[dingbat]

Thanks.

So pay attention boys and girls. During good times 5 points were worth about $700,000 and I'm fairly certain the economy has exacerbated it