Top Law Schools

I hope this is the correct forum...
I took the LSAT three times in the past - scored 159, 163, 160. However, on practice tests I scored 176 or better (well, all practice tests after studying the first round).
I was accepted to UC Hastings (with a 4.07 GPA according to LSAC).
I'd love to go to Berkeley. If you were me, would you try to transfer after the first year, or retake the LSAT? This is presuming I have the grades to transfer.
I figure that if I don't have the grades - that is, ranking in the top 1-3% of the class - to transfer to Berkeley, I probably shouldn't be there anyway. So, if I don't have the grades to transfer, I would finish at Hastings.
Thanks...

Attend UC-Hastings if you are willing to graduate from that law school. Retake the LSAT if your preparation indicates that you will score higher than a 166---which is within the 3 point range of your 163.

You need to put some serious thought into why your test scores and practice test scores are so different.

If you want to live in SF and work in Cali go to Hastings. I have heard that the legal community is pretty unanimous with the idea the Cal produces some unimpressive attorneys. I mean you cant fail out of Cal.....they wont let you....they baby their students....it is absurd and sickening that they are a top 14.

Plus no guarantee you will get in if you retake.

bdubs wrote:You need to put some serious thought into why your test scores and practice test scores are so different.

+1

are you taking your PTs under real testing conditions? Are you timing yourself? That just seems like a pretty large difference. Usually the people that can PT that high under real conditions are not the type to freak out on test day or are "just not that good at standardized tests." Don't know your situations just my thought.

Try and transfer if you want; no harm in doing that.

Figure out why you have such a large discrepancy between your actual scores and your practice tests. Then retake. With a 4.0+ and a 170+ LSAT you will get into some amazing schools, likely with $, regardless of your past scores.

If you attend somewhere now you will have a much lower chance of being able to attend Boalt. It's much easier to retake the LSAT than it is to dominate 1L.

emciosn wrote:are you taking your PTs under real testing conditions? Are you timing yourself? That just seems like a pretty large difference. Usually the people that can PT that high under real conditions are not the type to freak out on test day or are "just not that good at standardized tests." Don't know your situations just my thought.

I took practice tests in a library, timed. I even tried taking 6 sections instead of 5 on a few tests to test my endurance.
Another odd thing: I never do badly on the same two sections - its been a different section each time (LR, LG, RC).
Another question - I think Berkeley isn't just a numbers school. So won't (or will) multiple LSAT scores hurt my chances?
Thanks everyone!

If you can put some significant separation between your earlier scores, say a 170+, your previous scores will probably be only a very minor disadvantage. So I'd go for a retake, but . . . your situation as you describe is is extremely atypical. To continually score a "176 or better" on a timed practice test indicates nearly complete mastery of LSAT skills. A test-day drop of 15 points (multiple times!) isn't bad luck or nerves, it indicates something is terribly off in your preparation.

Helicio wrote:Try and transfer if you want; no harm in doing that.

The harm is that if a person goes to a particular law school planning or counting on transferring then they are basically stuck at the school they don't really want when or if it doesn't happen. And if they really are just trying to use the school to leverage a transfer acceptance (aren't happy being at that school in itself), then being stuck there will SUCK.

I already called flame in the duplicate thread OP made. Flame at least re: scoring up to 180 (which if not said here was said in the other thread). It doesn't compute that someone (without taking all day to take the test perhaps and cheating by looking at answers on tough ones) would score high 170s and 180 and then consistently on three actual tests barely break 160. That doesn't compute.

--LinkRemoved--

Lawquacious wrote:I already called flame in the duplicate thread OP made. Flame at least re: scoring up to 180 (which if not said here was said in the other thread).

I don't like to call flame when there's nothing antagonistic about an OP, but yeah,
it seems more likely than not.

suspicious android wrote:

Lawquacious wrote:I already called flame in the duplicate thread OP made. Flame at least re: scoring up to 180 (which if not said here was said in the other thread).

I don't like to call flame when there's nothing antagonistic about an OP, but yeah,
it seems more likely than not.

Yeah I hear you on that. If you're not a flame OP it is not meant to be personal... I actually don't think the post is intended as a flame in full (if it were it would be pretty lame in any case IMO), but I just think that it is a flame in that OP isn't being honest about the high test scores or is not disclosing other special circumstances that would help explain his/her purported outcomes (such as deathlock test anxiety that is one of the worst cases in history lol, or that in fact substantial liberties were taken with the practice tests)..

Lawquacious wrote:

suspicious android wrote:

Lawquacious wrote:I already called flame in the duplicate thread OP made. Flame at least re: scoring up to 180 (which if not said here was said in the other thread).

I don't like to call flame when there's nothing antagonistic about an OP, but yeah,
it seems more likely than not.

Yeah I hear you on that. If you're not a flame OP it is not meant to be personal... I actually don't think the post is intended as a flame in full (if it were it would be pretty lame in any case IMO), but I just think that it is a flame in that OP isn't being honest about the high test scores or is not disclosing other special circumstances that would help explain his/her purported outcomes (such as deathlock test anxiety that is one of the worst cases in history lol, or that in fact substantial liberties were taken with the practice tests)..

Sorry, I've only posted on the forums once before, and I'm not a regular reader...so I just presumed that different people read the different topics.
Not a flame.

jarofsoup wrote:I mean you cant fail out of Cal.....they wont let you....they baby their students....it is absurd and sickening that they are a top 14.

NOBODY flunks out of T14 law schools.

My understanding is that transferring is a pipe dream for 80% of students. Transferring to a T14 from lower T1 is unrealistic for 90% of the students.

1. Do not go to law school with the intention of transferring. There is a greater than 90% chance that you will not end up doing so.

2. If you actually ended up in the top 1-3% at Hastings with Law Review & scholarships, you would be better off staying put than you would transferring to Boalt anyway, presuming that you intend on staying in Northern CA.

bceagles182 wrote:1. Do not go to law school with the intention of transferring. There is a greater than 90% chance that you will not end up doing so.

2. If you actually ended up in the top 1-3% at Hastings with Law Review & scholarships, you would be better off staying put than you would transferring to Boalt anyway, presuming that you intend on staying in Northern CA.

Yeah... I have heard that if you are in the T1 or a very strong regional T2 and are top 5% it isn't worth transferring to anywhere but HYS. I think you might be able to argue CCN, of course... but your points are both TCR, which was my point.

I should be sleeping, I have no idea if the above sentences make sense. Talk amongst yourselves.