Top Law Schools

let's assume you took the test for the third time, aiming for (and needing) a 170+. you average -2 per section on regular PTs (at least that's what you like to think). after the real test, you realize you guessed on at least 2 questions per section due to time issues/fatigue/etc and risk not getting that score. would you cancel?

canceling will mean having to settle for lesser schools, which you don't want (for personal reasons, not necessarily job market).
any retakes will have to be taken two years later.
and blah.

what would you do?? ..would you do me?

joekim1 wrote: what would you do?? would you do me?

are you drunk?

jayn3 wrote:

joekim1 wrote: what would you do?? would you do me?

are you drunk?

no i don't drink but i guess this is kinda what it would feel like :/

so would you? jk

With a generous curve you may be able to miss 3 on each section.

If you've already got two scores under 170 there is no reason to cancel. You've really not nothing to lose. And there is a chance you'll get your 170.

won't matter at this point, not like you can retake it a 4th time. just take the score.

joekim1 wrote: so would you? jk

i am.....



....so, probably

Desert Fox wrote:With a generous curve you may be able to miss 3 on each section.

If you've already got two scores under 170 there is no reason to cancel. You've really not nothing to lose. And there is a chance you'll get your 170.

i guess, but i feel like i underperformed. i have absolutely no confidence this time around, and wouldn't be surprised if i got something in the lower 160s again.

jayn3 wrote:

joekim1 wrote: so would you? jk

i am.....



....so, probably

ok lets cyb3r

no

joekim1 wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:With a generous curve you may be able to miss 3 on each section.

If you've already got two scores under 170 there is no reason to cancel. You've really not nothing to lose. And there is a chance you'll get your 170.

i guess, but i feel like i underperformed. i have absolutely no confidence this time around, and wouldn't be surprised if i got something in the lower 160s again.

Maybe you did, but who cares. Schools that take a lower 160 don't care about retakes anyway.

I am in your exact situations. I felt decent on the test, except for games. I think you should just wait for the score. We have no idea what the curve might be like, lots of people are saying it was rough, so it may be generous. I hope for both our sakes it is.

jks289 wrote:I am in your exact situations. I felt decent on the test, except for games. I think you should just wait for the score. We have no idea what the curve might be like, lots of people are saying it was rough, so it may be generous. I hope for both our sakes it is.

thanks, nice to know i'm not alone. hope we get like a -20 curve. would be nice..

jks289 wrote:I am in your exact situations. I felt decent on the test, except for games. I think you should just wait for the score. We have no idea what the curve might be like, lots of people are saying it was rough, so it may be generous. I hope for both our sakes it is.

I am in the same boat. The December curve was nice, so maybe this will be as well. Hopefully you're right.

Maybe LSAC is trending toward offering more difficult tests. I think the exams became easier in the 40's. Maybe now they are trying to make the test less learnable/beatable.

luckyjd wrote:won't matter at this point, not like you can retake it a 4th time. just take the score.

Wrong. It will matter, and you can take it a fourth time.

Not to be a jerk..... but with all those low scores, you'll probably need to deal with your "personal reasons" and "settle for lesser schools."

Me-a Culpa wrote:

luckyjd wrote:won't matter at this point, not like you can retake it a 4th time. just take the score.

Wrong. It will matter, and you can take it a fourth time.

Not to be a jerk..... but with all those low scores, you'll probably need to deal with your "personal reasons" and "settle for lesser schools."

no i understand. i'm taking that into consideration. real talk. it might become a reality in three weeks, so we'll see.

joekim1 wrote:

Me-a Culpa wrote:

luckyjd wrote:won't matter at this point, not like you can retake it a 4th time. just take the score.

Wrong. It will matter, and you can take it a fourth time.

Not to be a jerk..... but with all those low scores, you'll probably need to deal with your "personal reasons" and "settle for lesser schools."

no i understand. i'm taking that into consideration. real talk. it might become a reality in three weeks, so we'll see.

I think the key is to have a probable auto admit school in mind that you would like to attend. I have one, and if I were to attend, I'd be damn happy to be there. It wouldn't be settling at all, because there are things about that school that I really like a great deal. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with wanting to strive for a spot at a more competitive school. It's not a matter of "settling" or not.

I like that advice about settling. Come on we are talking about law school here. None of us are settling unless of course you end up as a manager at Burger King feeling all successful lol

yawwwwn

newmvmnt wrote:I like that advice about settling. Come on we are talking about law school here. None of us are settling unless of course you end up as a manager at Burger King feeling all successful lol

I'd rather be a burger king manager than go to a T3, and I'm not joking.

Desert Fox wrote:

newmvmnt wrote:I like that advice about settling. Come on we are talking about law school here. None of us are settling unless of course you end up as a manager at Burger King feeling all successful lol

I'd rather be a burger king manager than go to a T3, and I'm not joking.

lol thats sad

newmvmnt wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

newmvmnt wrote:I like that advice about settling. Come on we are talking about law school here. None of us are settling unless of course you end up as a manager at Burger King feeling all successful lol

I'd rather be a burger king manager than go to a T3, and I'm not joking.

lol thats sad

Sad about me or sad about the job placement at T3 schools.

Because most lawyers start out at 45-65K with over 100K in debt. I'd rather have the BK job and work 40 hours a week for 40K.

I've got a buddy who is in Wendy's management. He's got a better life than most third tier toileteers.

Desert Fox wrote:

newmvmnt wrote:I like that advice about settling. Come on we are talking about law school here. None of us are settling unless of course you end up as a manager at Burger King feeling all successful lol

I'd rather be a burger king manager than go to a T3, and I'm not joking.

Here's a riddle: What's the difference between the guy that did as you stated and the guy that graduated from Cooley?

A: One of them is practicing law.

When people are willing to accept a position that is far-removed from the dreams because it'd mean not having to accept less than HYS, I question why they want to practice law, and generally feel that the profession is better without them.

To the OP: The goal is to gain admission to a school that will accommodate your plans. If those plans involve law school, and you're serious about it, then let it ride. Don't settle, but really think about what 'settling' means. Waiting indefinitely to go to law school because of disparate results between PT and administration? That's settling. If the worst occurs, and you want to spend two years waiting, then spend them well, but don't continue to put off your dreams.

Whatever you choose, best of luck.

If you guessed on two questions per section, chances are you will not hit your 170 unless you nailed every question you did not guess on. But that's hard to do.

I'd say keep the score, expect the worst, hope for the best. If you have to go to a T2 school, do it. See if you can kick ass at school, rank in the top 5%, and maybe transfer to a better school. Getting a 163 on this test would not be the end of the world.

existenz wrote:If you guessed on two questions per section, chances are you will not hit your 170 unless you nailed every question you did not guess on. But that's hard to do.

I'd say keep the score, expect the worst, hope for the best. If you have to go to a T2 school, do it. See if you can kick ass at school, rank in the top 5%, and maybe transfer to a better school. Getting a 163 on this test would not be the end of the world.

I already have a 163. Would scoring below 160 hurt my chances with schools I've applied to? Iowa, Florida, Wake, Arizona, Utah?

I think I scored between 158-164. I just don't know.

Desert Fox wrote:

newmvmnt wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

newmvmnt wrote:I like that advice about settling. Come on we are talking about law school here. None of us are settling unless of course you end up as a manager at Burger King feeling all successful lol

I'd rather be a burger king manager than go to a T3, and I'm not joking.

lol thats sad

Sad about me or sad about the job placement at T3 schools.

Because most lawyers start out at 45-65K with over 100K in debt. I'd rather have the BK job and work 40 hours a week for 40K.

I've got a buddy who is in Wendy's management. He's got a better life than most third tier toileteers.

Fuck BK and Wendy's. Move out west and work for In and Out!:

The Snyders always held their employees in high esteem, paying them higher wages than competitors and calling them associates to make them feel more connected to the franchise.

“They believed in sharing their success with their employees,” says Perman, noting that In-N-Out associates make $10 an hour working part-time and starting store managers make $100,000, plus bonuses tied to store performance. The company benefits package is also generous. Such treatment engenders loyalty from workers.

“They have the lowest turnover rate in the fast food industry, which is notorious for turnover,” says Perman. “They say that the average manager’s tenure is 14 years, but they have managers who have been there 30 or 40 years.”

Mr. Matlock wrote:Fuck BK and Wendy's. Move out west and work for In and Out!:

The Snyders always held their employees in high esteem, paying them higher wages than competitors and calling them associates to make them feel more connected to the franchise.

“They believed in sharing their success with their employees,” says Perman, noting that In-N-Out associates make $10 an hour working part-time and starting store managers make $100,000, plus bonuses tied to store performance. The company benefits package is also generous. Such treatment engenders loyalty from workers.

“They have the lowest turnover rate in the fast food industry, which is notorious for turnover,” says Perman. “They say that the average manager’s tenure is 14 years, but they have managers who have been there 30 or 40 years.”

lol, well if i were to take any of those options, in-n-out would def be my choice.

Snuffie wrote:To the OP: The goal is to gain admission to a school that will accommodate your plans. If those plans involve law school, and you're serious about it, then let it ride. Don't settle, but really think about what 'settling' means. Waiting indefinitely to go to law school because of disparate results between PT and administration? That's settling. If the worst occurs, and you want to spend two years waiting, then spend them well, but don't continue to put off your dreams.

Whatever you choose, best of luck.

qft. thanks for the advice.