Top Law Schools

I'm curious if there's a statistic out there for this. There must be. I'm going to assume anything above 170 is risky, and anything above 173 (99%) or so is stupid... given the pressure and stress of the LSAT, I would imagine you need to have a PT average of 177-180 to justify any retakes.

I would like to also ask how bad a cancel looks if added to 2 previous scores...

I can't speak from experience, but it really depends from person to person.

Some people are very happy with anything above a 160 something. I'm retaking, no matter what, if I fail to break 168. The programs I want to have a shot of getting into are very selective, I need a high score. It also depends what you're PTing at. If I'm PTing at 175, I'm not going to be very happy with a 168...

Totally depends on your PT scores. I'll definitely retake anything below a 171 and I think 172 is pretty borderline for me. I'm sure someone on TLS has retaken a 174 to try to get HYS after PTing in the 178+ range.

180.

FuManChusco wrote:Totally depends on your PT scores. I'll definitely retake anything below a 171 and I think 172 is pretty borderline for me. I'm sure someone on TLS has retaken a 174 to try to get HYS after PTing in the 178+ range.

171 or below definite re-take. 172 is borderline for me. 173 i'm probably set. 174 definitely set.

i intend to retake in october even if i get a 180 on my june retake, to raise the average.

It depends on the individual, where u want to go, what ur satisfied with, what ur pt average is, and hence what u expect of urself.

7ED wrote:i intend to retake in october even if i get a 180 on my june retake, to raise the average.

It depends on the individual, where u want to go, what ur satisfied with, what ur pt average is, and hence what u expect of urself.

I hope you're kidding.

^
according to 180-man, it's 'ur' not 'you're'

I'm retaking if I go below 177. So I guess in general if you feel like you underperform your PTs, it's reasonable.

CordeliusX wrote:I'm curious if there's a statistic out there for this. There must be. I'm going to assume anything above 170 is risky, and anything above 173 (99%) or so is stupid... given the pressure and stress of the LSAT, I would imagine you need to have a PT average of 177-180 to justify any retakes.

I would like to also ask how bad a cancel looks if added to 2 previous scores...

I think these are the statistics you are looking for. (look under Data==> LSAT Repeater)

Interesting to note, every single score up to 173 had more retakes result in higher scores than lower scores. Also, see the 169 who ended up in 130-139 range? OUCH!

I would say at that point it's pretty statistically irrelevant though. Basically, retakes usually mean higher scores.

the link in the post above does not work

It depends on your GPA somewhat, but I think generally at or above 175 a higher score does not correlate with a higher probability of admission any longer.

GeePee wrote:It depends on your GPA somewhat, but I think generally at or above 175 a higher score does not correlate with a higher probability of admission any longer.

I agree with this.

GeePee wrote:It depends on your GPA somewhat, but I think generally at or above 175 a higher score does not correlate with a higher probability of admission any longer.

This depends on your school and is because once you go over their 75th, more points are ~ useless. This is why Harvard values 177 (at their 75th) more highly than 176 while GULC would not distinguish between the two.

I probably wouldn't retake anything 172 or above. Of course the way things worked out I'm retaking...

7ED wrote:i intend to retake in october even if i get a 180 on my june retake, to raise the average.

It depends on the individual, where u want to go, what ur satisfied with, what ur pt average is, and hence what u expect of urself.

--ImageRemoved--

d34dluk3 wrote:

GeePee wrote:It depends on your GPA somewhat, but I think generally at or above 175 a higher score does not correlate with a higher probability of admission any longer.

This depends on your school and is because once you go over their 75th, more points are ~ useless. This is why Harvard values 177 (at their 75th) more highly than 176 while GULC would not distinguish between the two.

Not really. Go look at 177 vs. 176 vs. 175 on LSN for Harvard. There's really no measurable difference in admissions outcomes at comparable GPAs, barring maybe 1 or 2 outliers.

Its worth checking out the retaker statistics on LSAC as well.

Last September I retook on a 169 (a score that I know would make a lot of people happy) and ended up getting a lot closer to my PT average. A lot of other retakers also did well on that test. However, if you look at the statistics for retakers with very high scores, many end up doing worse on their retakes. Of the 2 people who retook a 180 (WTF?!?!) in 2007-08, the average retake score was a 173.

GeePee wrote:

d34dluk3 wrote:

GeePee wrote:It depends on your GPA somewhat, but I think generally at or above 175 a higher score does not correlate with a higher probability of admission any longer.

This depends on your school and is because once you go over their 75th, more points are ~ useless. This is why Harvard values 177 (at their 75th) more highly than 176 while GULC would not distinguish between the two.

Not really. Go look at 177 vs. 176 vs. 175 on LSN for Harvard. There's really no measurable difference in admissions outcomes at comparable GPAs, barring maybe 1 or 2 outliers.

HourUMD (aggregated LSN):

3.7/175: 39.7% 3.8/175: 57.8%
3.7/176: 48.2% 3.8/176: 78.6%
3.7/177: 60.9% 3.8/177: 87.7%

1. Find out your practice test average.
2. Subtract a couple points (test day jitters)
3. If you don't get this score on test day or higher, retake.
4. ???
5. Profit.

d34dluk3 wrote:

GeePee wrote:

d34dluk3 wrote:

GeePee wrote:It depends on your GPA somewhat, but I think generally at or above 175 a higher score does not correlate with a higher probability of admission any longer.

This depends on your school and is because once you go over their 75th, more points are ~ useless. This is why Harvard values 177 (at their 75th) more highly than 176 while GULC would not distinguish between the two.

Not really. Go look at 177 vs. 176 vs. 175 on LSN for Harvard. There's really no measurable difference in admissions outcomes at comparable GPAs, barring maybe 1 or 2 outliers.

HourUMD (aggregated LSN):

3.7/175: 39.7% 3.8/175: 57.8%
3.7/176: 48.2% 3.8/176: 78.6%
3.7/177: 60.9% 3.8/177: 87.7%

HourUMD is not aggregated LSN (well, at least not relevantly aggregated it seems). It is completely arbitrary and relies on a best-fit formula for additional LSAT points. So, while it does show decreasing returns, it does so based on not totally relevant data (i.e. the change from 170-171 is "relevant" in the calculation of 176-177).

EDIT: It does seem that the datapoints show a very marginal return to an additional LSAT point here; however the benefit starts to become exceedingly small compared to previous points. Based on the time cost and probability of scoring lower, it still seems not to be worth it for 175+ scores, although I will concede that there is still a small marginal increase for borderline GPAs.

d34dluk3 wrote:

GeePee wrote:It depends on your GPA somewhat, but I think generally at or above 175 a higher score does not correlate with a higher probability of admission any longer.

This depends on your school and is because once you go over their 75th, more points are ~ useless. This is why Harvard values 177 (at their 75th) more highly than 176 while GULC would not distinguish between the two.

Harvard's 75th is a 176.

GeePee wrote:HourUMD is not aggregated LSN (well, at least not relevantly aggregated it seems). It is completely arbitrary and relies on a best-fit formula for additional LSAT points. So, while it does show decreasing returns, it does so based on not totally relevant data (i.e. the change from 170-171 is "relevant" in the calculation of 176-177).

You are thinking of Law School Predictor. What I heard is that HourUMD is a direct aggregation of LSN numbers and compares you to people with your numbers. The statement on their site is somewhat vague:

This Law School Probability calculator uses data gathered from Law School Numbers to calculate your chances to attend different law schools. All data is self-reported, but with over 143,000 data points, it should be somewhat accurate.

Admittedly, LSN is not the most accurate thing in the world, but it's better than nothing. And when I'm right on the cusp for Harvard, that 10% increase in my chances is huge. For other people, maybe it's not such a big deal.

rayiner wrote:Harvard's 75th is a 176.

You're right, but this actually provides an even better rationale for preferring 177 over 175/176. Basically, if you're anywhere near the 75th percentile, each point is huge.

d34dluk3 wrote:

rayiner wrote:Harvard's 75th is a 176.

You're right, but this actually provides an even better rationale for preferring 177 over 175/176. Basically, if you're anywhere near the 75th percentile, each point is huge.

You're going to have to explain the math of this one to me.