Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=141996
Wow, that data is the complete opposite of OP.WhatSarahSaid wrote:Your title says 170+, and your post says 170.
Also, where are you getting your data from?
http://www.lsac.org/jd/PDFs/RepeaterData.pdf
That form, if I am correct in my interpretation of the data.WhatSarahSaid wrote:Your title says 170+, and your post says 170.
Also, where are you getting your data from?
http://www.lsac.org/jd/PDFs/RepeaterData.pdf
Unless I'm interpreting that chart wrong at a quick glance- why the F would you retake the LSAT if you had a 180 on your most recent test??!!?WhatSarahSaid wrote:Your title says 170+, and your post says 170.
Also, where are you getting your data from?
http://www.lsac.org/jd/PDFs/RepeaterData.pdf
I don't think you are.anonymiB wrote:That form, if I am correct in my interpretation of the data.WhatSarahSaid wrote:Your title says 170+, and your post says 170.
Also, where are you getting your data from?
http://www.lsac.org/jd/PDFs/RepeaterData.pdf
Maybe for funsies? Maybe on a bet? Maybe they are SUPERGUNNERS and think TWO 180's are better than one? haha... either way, it makes me feel bad about my score.krad wrote:Unless I'm interpreting that chart wrong at a quick glance- why the F would you retake the LSAT if you had a 180 on your most recent test??!!?WhatSarahSaid wrote:Your title says 170+, and your post says 170.
Also, where are you getting your data from?
http://www.lsac.org/jd/PDFs/RepeaterData.pdf
The worst part is the 2 people with a 178 and 179 who fell below 170.krad wrote:Unless I'm interpreting that chart wrong at a quick glance- why the F would you retake the LSAT if you had a 180 on your most recent test??!!?WhatSarahSaid wrote:Your title says 170+, and your post says 170.
Also, where are you getting your data from?
http://www.lsac.org/jd/PDFs/RepeaterData.pdf
lulz what a waste of $130 or whatever it was...d34dluk3 wrote:The worst part is the 2 people with a 178 and 179 who fell below 170.krad wrote:Unless I'm interpreting that chart wrong at a quick glance- why the F would you retake the LSAT if you had a 180 on your most recent test??!!?WhatSarahSaid wrote:Your title says 170+, and your post says 170.
Also, where are you getting your data from?
http://www.lsac.org/jd/PDFs/RepeaterData.pdf
What a waste of the thousands of dollars in counseling fees probably needed afterwards.krad wrote:lulz what a waste of $130 or whatever it was...d34dluk3 wrote:The worst part is the 2 people with a 178 and 179 who fell below 170.krad wrote:Unless I'm interpreting that chart wrong at a quick glance- why the F would you retake the LSAT if you had a 180 on your most recent test??!!?WhatSarahSaid wrote:Your title says 170+, and your post says 170.
Also, where are you getting your data from?
http://www.lsac.org/jd/PDFs/RepeaterData.pdf
TITCRWhatSarahSaid wrote:I think the data are really interesting but fairly useless when figuring out what you personally should do. After sufficient prep, you should know if your result on test day was at or close to your potential. I saw that chart when I was considering retaking on my 173 (out of 8, four improved, four did worse), and even if the data had encouraged me not to, I still would've retaken because I saw my score report and knew I hadn't reached the ceiling.
I disagree with this. After 170 I think most people are probably capable of scoring close to 180 in ideal conditions. If you have already achieved a 170+ you obviously understand the test and possess the logical skills needed to master it. The data helps you evaluate the chances of maintaing, lowering or increasing your score on a retake.WhatSarahSaid wrote:I think the data are really interesting but fairly useless when figuring out what you personally should do. After sufficient prep, you should know if your result on test day was at or close to your potential. I saw that chart when I was considering retaking on my 173 (out of 8, four improved, four did worse), and even if the data had encouraged me not to, I still would've retaken because I saw my score report and knew I hadn't reached the ceiling.
I was wondering if they were instructors of some kind... But still, why does anyone need >1 180?bartleby wrote:Aren't the multiple 180's or 178/179 retakes Testmasters teachers?
This wasn't my opinion, but an LSAC survey I was posting. And although I misread the information, there was still a great discrepancy between those who scored above 170-175 and their retake scores. Good information there, no matter how bad a student or LSAT taker I may be. And I am allowed to post, even if no one wants to read. And on many of posts I am asking for help from these informed people, so...robotclubmember wrote:Not to be condescending, but this is TLS, as in top law schools. Not the place for people who coasted through undergrad and nailed a 146 on the LSAT to tell everyone else what's what. You can't just come into a forum filled with people who have studied hundreds and hundreds of hours for the LSAT, many of whom are already in law school and have ample familiarity with the process, and expect people to waste time reading your completely uninformed opinions. Just post less and lurk more.
Lol, says the person with 170 posts.robotclubmember wrote:Not to be condescending, but this is TLS, as in top law schools. Not the place for people who coasted through undergrad and nailed a 146 on the LSAT to tell everyone else what's what. You can't just come into a forum filled with people who have studied hundreds and hundreds of hours for the LSAT, many of whom are already in law school and have ample familiarity with the process, and expect people to waste time reading your completely uninformed opinions. Just post less and lurk more.
artichoke wrote:Lol, says the person with 170 posts.robotclubmember wrote:Not to be condescending, but this is TLS, as in top law schools. Not the place for people who coasted through undergrad and nailed a 146 on the LSAT to tell everyone else what's what. You can't just come into a forum filled with people who have studied hundreds and hundreds of hours for the LSAT, many of whom are already in law school and have ample familiarity with the process, and expect people to waste time reading your completely uninformed opinions. Just post less and lurk more.
Irony failartichoke wrote:Lol, says the person with 170 posts.robotclubmember wrote:Just post less and lurk more.
Cognition fail.Attorney wrote:Irony failartichoke wrote:Lol, says the person with 170 posts.robotclubmember wrote:Just post less and lurk more.
Maybe the person was worried about being YPed.krad wrote:Unless I'm interpreting that chart wrong at a quick glance- why the F would you retake the LSAT if you had a 180 on your most recent test??!!?WhatSarahSaid wrote:Your title says 170+, and your post says 170.
Also, where are you getting your data from?
http://www.lsac.org/jd/PDFs/RepeaterData.pdf
Most people actually score higher, but people at the very top of the score range, in the 170 area are only about 60% more likely to score in the 170 range again..so retaking with an already high score is riskier than retaking with an already low score.delusional wrote:Maybe the person was worried about being YPed.krad wrote:Unless I'm interpreting that chart wrong at a quick glance- why the F would you retake the LSAT if you had a 180 on your most recent test??!!?WhatSarahSaid wrote:Your title says 170+, and your post says 170.
Also, where are you getting your data from?
http://www.lsac.org/jd/PDFs/RepeaterData.pdf
Re: the OP, which I was going to respond to before it was edited:
These surveys and advice things are only worth so much - in the end, people are not statistics. Yes, many people probably score lower the second time. They may also have studied less, and taken more for granted. Everyone is happy to throw numbers and advice at you on LSAT, admissions, etc. And it's very helpful, to a point. Maybe you need to be top 10% in certain schools to get a Biglaw job. But you are a big part of the decision to be in the top 10%. Or maybe you don't want biglaw. or maybe sticker will barely take a bite out of your allowance. Whatever.
Not to give new life to this thread but.... +1d34dluk3 wrote:Cognition fail.Attorney wrote:Irony failartichoke wrote:Lol, says the person with 170 posts.robotclubmember wrote:Just post less and lurk more.