Retake after a 170? Forum

[gable sans stache]

Applied last year and decided to take a couple years off for financial reasons and to build a real-world resume. Going for fall of '14 now. I figure with a little bit of free time I can improve on a 170 - mostly in LG. Anyone have any experience or advice on prep materials?

[WanderingPondering]

Yea, why not? Higher scores turn into more $$ and/or acceptances. If you have the time, go for it.

LG and LR Bibiles are a good place to start, as I'm sure you know

[NoodleyOne]

I know someone on here is retaking a 172, and I am retaking a 169 (and would have retaken a 170 without a second thought). Every point on thus thing helps.

[shifty_eyed]

I retook a 170 and got... a 170.

But there is NO HARM in retaking at all, and since you have the time, WHY NOT?

[JDeezy]

I retook a 170 and got... a 170.

But there is NO HARM in retaking at all, and since you have the time, WHY NOT?

While I certainly agree that if OP can beat 170, they should absolutely re-take as every point is critical. It's my understanding however that there is at least moderate risk. If OP scores 166, that doesn't look good, right?

[LargeNinCharge]

.

[Funkycrime]

I retook a 170 and got... a 170.

But there is NO HARM in retaking at all, and since you have the time, WHY NOT?

While I certainly agree that if OP can beat 170, they should absolutely re-take as every point is critical. It's my understanding however that there is at least moderate risk. If OP scores 166, that doesn't look good, right?

It doesn't look good I guess, but it isn't bad either. Schools are too big of median whores to seriously care about a lower score, not matter the order it comes in.

[R86]

I say go for it, but only if you're willing to dedicate some time to figuring out where your mistakes came from and how not to make them again.

I hit 170 my first take, and was dead set on retaking, but realized after a while that 170 is a good enough score for the schools I really want to be at and I just couldn't find any motivation to study for a retake. I have another chance to take the test for free still (LSAC waiver), so if my cycle doesn't turn out this time around, I'll probably end up retaking after all.

To bring some objective facts to the table, the most recent available data shows that out of the 90 people who retook a 170, 50 scored higher while 40 stayed at 170 or scored lower. So the odds are ever so slightly in your favor, I guess.

[Sounder89]

I retook a 170 and got... a 170.

But there is NO HARM in retaking at all, and since you have the time, WHY NOT?

While I certainly agree that if OP can beat 170, they should absolutely re-take as every point is critical. It's my understanding however that there is at least moderate risk. If OP scores 166, that doesn't look good, right?

It doesn't look good I guess, but it isn't bad either. Schools are too big of median whores to seriously care about a lower score, not matter the order it comes in.

A downward trend certainly wouldn't help though. A 170 and a 166 a year later could definitely raise red flags with some adcoms, so it is a little risky. Not to mention all those hours you would have to pour into another round of LSAT prep. Since OP seems to have the time however, I would say go for it. Plus, it seems to be a general consensus around here that LG is the easiest section to improve on, so aiming for a score in the mid 170s wouldn't be unrealistic.

[gable sans stache]

Thanks for the insight, guys.

To bring some objective facts to the table, the most recent available data shows that out of the 90 people who retook a 170, 50 scored higher while 40 stayed at 170 or scored lower. So the odds are ever so slightly in your favor, I guess.

That's interesting - I didn't know you could even look that up.

I studied with the Kaplan method - would switching to Powerscore or something else to improve on LG help or hinder? I've never really learned anything else, so I'm not sure if the methods complement each other or not.

[nygrrrl]

Thanks for the insight, guys.

To bring some objective facts to the table, the most recent available data shows that out of the 90 people who retook a 170, 50 scored higher while 40 stayed at 170 or scored lower. So the odds are ever so slightly in your favor, I guess.

That's interesting - I didn't know you could even look that up.

I studied with the Kaplan method - would switching to Powerscore or something else to improve on LG help or hinder? I've never really learned anything else, so I'm not sure if the methods complement each other or not.

I started out with Kaplan, then found Powerscore. In my case, the LG Bible was tremendously helpful; I credit it with boosting my score. Best of luck!

[NoodleyOne]

LG Bible and/or Manhattan LG are the credited responses to that question. Kaplan method can die in a fire.

[CyanIdes Of March]

If I got a 170 I'd most likely retake. I'd probably retake anything under a 172 - 173.

[cloudhidden]

If I got a 170 I'd most likely retake. I'd probably retake anything under a 172 - 173.

That's about how I feel. Two points isn't even a statistically meaningful difference but ask anyone on here about what it means for admissions and scholarship, especially with CLS at 172 median for another year.

[VUSisterRayVU]

I'd argue that if you score within 2 points of your PT avg and you aren't shut out of your second choices in the T14, retaking might not be the best move simply because you almost certainly scored in your range. The time and effort and delay are likely best spent elsewhere. But if you were testing consistently in the low 170s and got a 169, I would retake because the difference between a 169 and a 17x is substantial imo. A 172 when you PT at 174 seems foolish to do over unless you got shut out of HYS bc of it and hate Columbia or whatever.

[banjo]

I would not retake a 170 unless I had an HYS-level GPA (3.8+ or 3.7 with extraordinary softs). Obviously, if you were PTing way above 170, that's a different story.

As for prep, I think we need more info about your score breakdown and your earlier approach.

[abcde12345]

There is absolutely no question that you should retake; not because a 170 is bad at all (it's a great score), but because you have a whole year (or 7 months if you're taking it in June). What I would've done for a whole year!

Additionally, you say your problem is with LG, which is the most learnable section because there are really only 3 templates that the test-makers use: linear, advanced linear, and grouping (I don't include pure sequencing because it's so easy; I don't want to give it the credit of being amongst the rest). So although there are infinite possibilities for game solutions, there are limited possibilities for game rules, which you can easily learn.

[NoodleyOne]

I would not retake a 170 unless I had an HYS-level GPA (3.8+ or 3.7 with extraordinary softs). Obviously, if you were PTing way above 170, that's a different story.

As for prep, I think we need more info about your score breakdown and your earlier approach.

There are plenty reasons to retake a 170 as a splitter. 172 and up can open a lot of doors both school wise and scholly wise.

[Ti Malice]

A downward trend certainly wouldn't help though. A 170 and a 166 a year later could definitely raise red flags with some adcoms, so it is a little risky.

Outside of YLS and SLS, it would have practically no effect, especially in the current admissions climate. Law schools are going to be especially desperate to maintain medians over at least the next couple of years, as high scorers become fewer in number. The 170 is all they would see.

OP, you should definitely retake. Regardless of your GPA, even improving to a 172 will put you in a considerably stronger position. Since you have the time to study, since you managed to get to a 170 even with Kaplan's garbage methods, and because LG is apparently your biggest issue, your chances of improving your score seem pretty favorable.

[gable sans stache]

Thanks for the feedback. I'm actually kind of happy to hear bad things about Kaplan's method - Powerscore it is.

As for my situation (if anyone's as bored at work as I am), it's weird. I have a ~3.6 GPA (that was a 2.9 my first year, then a transfer and 3.9 my next three years). Great softs and work experience, but I got into the wrong crowd that freshman year and starred in a string of arrests (weed, alcohol) - random dings by a couple schools like Ohio State can only be attributed to that, I think.

Biglaw's not my thing, so I'm shooting for a T14 LRAP if the tides are right. If not, I'd be happy taking help from a mid T1 school on the West Coast and working public interest or settling down at a midsize firm.

I'm not really stressing about which hump a few points would propel me over - I just have time to kill, and if my PT scores increase (they were ~170), why not?