Should I retake the LSAT?
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 3:28 am
I was disappointed by my June LSAT score of 167 because I had scored in the 170's on five of my thirteen practice tests, including three of the last five.
Here are my practice test scores, from first to last:
166, 165, 167, 166, 172, 166, 170, 163, 175, 171, 172, 169, 167
However, I recently learned that newer tests are harder and that people who practiced with older tests (like I did) are usually disappointed with their scores. Also, admittedly, when I look at my scores, a 170+ was far from guaranteed.
I studied very hard for about two months before my LSAT. When I took the first practice test (the free one from LSAC) and got a 166, I figured that two months of studying would get me into the 170+ range. I read the LG Bible cover to cover and did all the exercises before taking another test. I was shocked to have dropped a point. But I steadily made progress…
I left the June test feeling that I had done my best. I know that this makes me a dubious candidate for retesting.
With a 167 and a 3.73, I have a decent shot at Cornell and UCLA, which are great schools. I'm planning to apply to Penn and Michigan, which are a little farther out of my reach, but I'm honestly not sure that either of those schools is necessarily all that much better for me than Cornell and UCLA. (I'll be applying to safeties, too, of course.)
Based on the law school probability calculator website I've been obsessing over, Berkeley, Stanford, and Yale are basically impossible with my GPA.
So really, the hopes that were dashed with my 167 are NYU, Columbia, and Harvard. (I really started dreaming on the day I got that 175!) Since all three of these schools take the average, rather than the highest LSAT score, I would have to improve tremendously to have a shot at these schools.
The problem is...my big dream is to be a law school professor. And based on reading through the credentials of the faculty at all of the top tier law schools, it's clear that going to a T-6 school is practically mandatory to be a law professor. (The exception is that many schools also hire a few of their own.)
I just don't know that retaking the LSAT is worth it, considering that I will probably score about the same (or lower!), and only a major improvement is likely to affect my ability to jump to a T-6 standing. On the other hand, I wonder if I'm being foolish (and cheap and lazy) by passing on an opportunity to raise my standing. But really…money’s tight. And I hesitate to invest more money and time (and emotional energy) if my score will likely be in the same range.
Should I retake or just focus on doing what I can with my softs? Thanks!
Here are my practice test scores, from first to last:
166, 165, 167, 166, 172, 166, 170, 163, 175, 171, 172, 169, 167
However, I recently learned that newer tests are harder and that people who practiced with older tests (like I did) are usually disappointed with their scores. Also, admittedly, when I look at my scores, a 170+ was far from guaranteed.
I studied very hard for about two months before my LSAT. When I took the first practice test (the free one from LSAC) and got a 166, I figured that two months of studying would get me into the 170+ range. I read the LG Bible cover to cover and did all the exercises before taking another test. I was shocked to have dropped a point. But I steadily made progress…
I left the June test feeling that I had done my best. I know that this makes me a dubious candidate for retesting.
With a 167 and a 3.73, I have a decent shot at Cornell and UCLA, which are great schools. I'm planning to apply to Penn and Michigan, which are a little farther out of my reach, but I'm honestly not sure that either of those schools is necessarily all that much better for me than Cornell and UCLA. (I'll be applying to safeties, too, of course.)
Based on the law school probability calculator website I've been obsessing over, Berkeley, Stanford, and Yale are basically impossible with my GPA.
So really, the hopes that were dashed with my 167 are NYU, Columbia, and Harvard. (I really started dreaming on the day I got that 175!) Since all three of these schools take the average, rather than the highest LSAT score, I would have to improve tremendously to have a shot at these schools.
The problem is...my big dream is to be a law school professor. And based on reading through the credentials of the faculty at all of the top tier law schools, it's clear that going to a T-6 school is practically mandatory to be a law professor. (The exception is that many schools also hire a few of their own.)
I just don't know that retaking the LSAT is worth it, considering that I will probably score about the same (or lower!), and only a major improvement is likely to affect my ability to jump to a T-6 standing. On the other hand, I wonder if I'm being foolish (and cheap and lazy) by passing on an opportunity to raise my standing. But really…money’s tight. And I hesitate to invest more money and time (and emotional energy) if my score will likely be in the same range.
Should I retake or just focus on doing what I can with my softs? Thanks!
