Old, 3 LSATs, One in the bag... Forum

[biggestlawman]

I got a 166 at third attempt, and I got accepted at a top 20 law school with approximately 90 percent scholarship. I am in my mid-thirties, but I really had my eyes set on Harvard. There is no other school but H where I would be willing to pay full, or even half the tuition.

I have a GPA that will get me into any school, but again, I am not getting any younger.

What do you guys say?

[raven1231]

Retake!

[Barack O'Drama]

What are the main reasons you want H? (name, prestige, career prospects, etc)

Also what is your LSAC calculated GPA if you don't mind me asking?

[rpupkin]

What is your GPA? What are your career goals (besides "go to Harvard")? Where do you want to live?

[biggestlawman]

My GPA is ~3.9 from a famous UG.

Why Harvard? Because of name, great big law numbers, and a shot at less common choices.

Career plans: Big law followed by business if possible.

Living choices: California or Miami

[rpupkin]

My GPA is ~3.9 from a famous UG.

Why Harvard? Because of name, great big law numbers, and a shot at less common choices.

Career plans: Big law followed by business if possible.

Living choices: California or Miami

If you want to go into business, go to business school. Don't waste time with three years of law school + several years in big law.

But if you want to be a lawyer, and if you want to work in big law, there's no real reason to fixate on HLS. Also, I'm not sure why you're not thinking about Stanford or Berkeley if California is a target destination for you.

Finally, four LSAT retakes could be a problem for you for HYS. Anecdotally, at least, there's reason to think that at least Yale and Stanford look down on a bunch of LSAT retakes. Not sure about HLS, but they might balk at admitting you even if you hit a 173 (or whatever) on your fourth try.

I'm pretty sure the non-HYS schools don't care, though. So, if you really want to be a lawyer, I'd suggest retaking and applying again.

[Barack O'Drama]

rpumkin is 100% correct. H is an amazing school, but don't be blinded by it either. If you want to work in California, consider Berkley, Stanford (if you retake) and USC, etc.

Also, never go to law school as a conduit to anything other than being an attorney. I know too many people who regret doing it, even best case scenario, they feel as though they neglected to calculate in opportunity cost of 3 years/COL.

[dietcoke1]

My GPA is ~3.9 from a famous UG.

Why Harvard? Because of name, great big law numbers, and a shot at less common choices.

Career plans: Big law followed by business if possible.

Living choices: California or Miami

If you want to go into business, go to business school. Don't waste time with three years of law school + several years in big law.

But if you want to be a lawyer, and if you want to work in big law, there's no real reason to fixate on HLS. Also, I'm not sure why you're not thinking about Stanford or Berkeley if California is a target destination for you.

Finally, four LSAT retakes could be a problem for you for HYS. Anecdotally, at least, there's reason to think that at least Yale and Stanford look down on a bunch of LSAT retakes. Not sure about HLS, but they might balk at admitting you even if you hit a 173 (or whatever) on your fourth try.

I'm pretty sure the non-HYS schools don't care, though. So, if you really want to be a lawyer, I'd suggest retaking and applying again.

Would you be able to elaborate on this? What is your experience with this?

At what point do you think Yale and Stanford look down on this? 2 LSAT trys?

Also, do you think they're less likely to look down on URMs who retake?

[rpupkin]

My GPA is ~3.9 from a famous UG.

Why Harvard? Because of name, great big law numbers, and a shot at less common choices.

Career plans: Big law followed by business if possible.

Living choices: California or Miami

If you want to go into business, go to business school. Don't waste time with three years of law school + several years in big law.

But if you want to be a lawyer, and if you want to work in big law, there's no real reason to fixate on HLS. Also, I'm not sure why you're not thinking about Stanford or Berkeley if California is a target destination for you.

Finally, four LSAT retakes could be a problem for you for HYS. Anecdotally, at least, there's reason to think that at least Yale and Stanford look down on a bunch of LSAT retakes. Not sure about HLS, but they might balk at admitting you even if you hit a 173 (or whatever) on your fourth try.

I'm pretty sure the non-HYS schools don't care, though. So, if you really want to be a lawyer, I'd suggest retaking and applying again.

Would you be able to elaborate on this? What is your experience with this?

Anecdotes on TLS about folks underperforming their numbers at YLS and SLS when they had multiple retakes. It seemed like it might be a negative soft factor at those schools. But, like I said in my initial post, this is just anecdotal. Both schools are so selective that it's hard to know with confidence why an applicant was dinged.

[biggestlawman]

Okay. I know how Yale and Stanford look at multiple takes, and that is the reason I did not mention them. As for business goals, those are wishful, and becoming a lawyer is more important. USC? Let me just say that the school I am getting good money from is just as good as USC. I just feel frustrated that I have not been able to fulfill my potential as far as LSAT is concerned. But then, it is harder when you have a full time job. I know that people have done it with bigger disadvantages, but it is about what I could've gotten if I had spent a little more time.

Perhaps I will look to at the impossible goal of transferring and becoming a second class student at H!

[rpupkin]

UCLA with close to a full scholarship--for someone who wants to practice in California--is a good outcome. I would just go with that.

[Lexaholik]

Okay. I know how Yale and Stanford look at multiple takes, and that is the reason I did not mention them. As for business goals, those are wishful, and becoming a lawyer is more important. USC? Let me just say that the school I am getting good money from is just as good as USC. I just feel frustrated that I have not been able to fulfill my potential as far as LSAT is concerned. But then, it is harder when you have a full time job. I know that people have done it with bigger disadvantages, but it is about what I could've gotten if I had spent a little more time.

Perhaps I will look to at the impossible goal of transferring and becoming a second class student at H!

Based on your career goals it sounds like you should just go to the top 20 school. But if you do decide to go for the LSAT one more time, I would highly recommend quitting your job and focusing on raising your score 100%. If you're not that committed, you probably won't break 166. Either way you're in a really good spot so you can't go wrong either way.

[AntsInMyEyesJohnson]

While not fulfilling your potential on the LSAT can be both frustrating and legitimate reason for a retake, it seems like most of this is driven by prestige obsession. Between your "famous UG", unceasing desire to be attached to the Harvard name, and "USC?", you come off as caring a lot more about prestige than someone in their mid-30s should. Maybe I'm reading into it too much, but it seems like you're really more concerned about how people outside the legal community will feel about your degree than about whether or not you're making a smart decision.

Again, though, maybe I'm wrong. Good luck making your decision!

[biggestlawman]

There is nothing wrong with trying to do something the best way possible. Age does not change the benefits you can get from having gone to a more "famous" school. It's not just about ending up in big law, a better name gives you a bigger and longer lasting margin of error, which god knows any of us can use. Besides, the top three also provide some, although infinitesimally small, opportunity of getting an academic position or other similarly rare careers.