144/3.0 not really a great chance at anything but Forum

[beachbum]

*ahem*

DON'T EVAR GO TO LAW SCHOOL!

Or at least ditch that festering TTT and trade-up to Barry.

[red_alertz]

144 is not a good score but an ok one, by ordinary standard, not TLS bs

[Veyron]

144 is not a good score but an ok one, by ordinary standard, not TLS bs

If by ordinary you mean the standard of the ordinary high schooler. Flame Mcflamovich

[bk1]

144 is not a good score but an ok one, by ordinary standard, not TLS bs

You realize that about half of the people who take the LSAT don't go to law school? Meaning a below median score is really bad by the standard of "people who go to law school."

[red_alertz]

144 is not a good score but an ok one, by ordinary standard, not TLS bs

You realize that about half of the people who take the LSAT don't go to law school? Meaning a below median score is really bad by the standard of "people who go to law school."

interesting, i honestly didn't know that, given there are so many schools out there now days, i thought the number would be higher

[bk1]

interesting, i honestly didn't know that, given there are so many schools out there now days, i thought the number would be higher

I was probably being conservative.

Around 40k-50k people matriculating every year (--LinkRemoved--). Around 140k LSATs administered each year. (It seems like LSAC has taken the data down but it used to be on their website and a Google search will reveal that it is around this number.)

[Patriot1208]

interesting, i honestly didn't know that, given there are so many schools out there now days, i thought the number would be higher

I was probably being conservative.

Around 40k-50k people matriculating every year (--LinkRemoved--). Around 140k LSATs administered each year. (It seems like LSAC has taken the data down but it used to be on their website and a Google search will reveal that it is around this number.)

How many retakers?

[bk1]

How many retakers?

Quick Google says 25% in '05? http://www.prelawhandbook.com/lsat__retaking

I'd imagine it's gone up so maybe something like 1/3 of them are retakers now. Which means the 1/2 don't go to school sounds about right?

[flexityflex86]

Just referencing the posts here: I run a small LSAT tutoring company, and have worked with ~1000 students total from across the country either directly, teaching classes for other companies or outsourcing to work with other tutors. As I wish to be honest and not politically correct, I'll hide behind my pseudonym.

Going from a 144 to a 160 is no sure thing. People on these boards say anyone can do it, but don't realize they are unrepresentative - you guys are just on average smarter than the rest of the US population. People from TLS have applied for jobs with me, and it becomes evident after 1 minute of conversation, they're much smarter than the applicants I get through the paper, craigslist, monster.com, etc.

Getting a 160 takes a certain baseline of "sharpness", and while I have had people go from a 140 to a 170, these people tended to have a 3.8 or better. This is indicative of someone who maybe just didn't get the test or had a certain level of work ethic.

As for the guy who said a 162 will get him into UF with a 3.0, this is not going to happen.

I am concerned that OP says they'll get a 160 or better, and seems to have no plan in place of how he'll get there. It is a lot more work to go from a 160 to a 170 than a 150 to a 160, but the difference is that the 144 makes it evident that OP has no idea what the hell they're doing.

[bk1]

Just referencing the posts here: I run a small LSAT tutoring company, and have worked with ~1000 students total from across the country either directly, teaching classes for other companies or outsourcing to work with other tutors. As I wish to be honest and not politically correct, I'll hide behind my pseudonym.

Going from a 144 to a 160 is no sure thing. People on these boards say anyone can do it, but don't realize they are unrepresentative - you guys are just on average smarter than the rest of the US population. People from TLS have applied for jobs with me, and it becomes evident after 1 minute of conversation, they're much smarter than the applicants I get through the paper, craigslist, monster.com, etc.

Getting a 160 takes a certain baseline of "sharpness", and while I have had people go from a 140 to a 170, these people tended to have a 3.8 or better. This is indicative of someone who maybe just didn't get the test or had a certain level of work ethic.

As for the guy who said a 162 will get him into UF with a 3.0, this is not going to happen.

I am concerned that OP says they'll get a 160 or better, and seems to have no plan in place of how he'll get there. It is a lot more work to go from a 160 to a 170 than a 150 to a 160, but the difference is that the 144 makes it evident that OP has no idea what the hell they're doing.

While I generally agree with this, I will say:

1. It is foolish not to at least try to increase your score.

2. Even small jumps (e.g. from 158 to 160) can change things drastically.

[flexityflex86]

How many retakers?

Quick Google says 25% in '05? http://www.prelawhandbook.com/lsat__retaking

I'd imagine it's gone up so maybe something like 1/3 of them are retakers now. Which means the 1/2 don't go to school sounds about right?

Not necessarily. A lot are happy after their first time, or just willing to settle. Not too many people have the strength to redo something they didn't like. Hence, why most Americans don't work out, and are fat.

[flexityflex86]

Just referencing the posts here: I run a small LSAT tutoring company, and have worked with ~1000 students total from across the country either directly, teaching classes for other companies or outsourcing to work with other tutors. As I wish to be honest and not politically correct, I'll hide behind my pseudonym.

Going from a 144 to a 160 is no sure thing. People on these boards say anyone can do it, but don't realize they are unrepresentative - you guys are just on average smarter than the rest of the US population. People from TLS have applied for jobs with me, and it becomes evident after 1 minute of conversation, they're much smarter than the applicants I get through the paper, craigslist, monster.com, etc.

Getting a 160 takes a certain baseline of "sharpness", and while I have had people go from a 140 to a 170, these people tended to have a 3.8 or better. This is indicative of someone who maybe just didn't get the test or had a certain level of work ethic.

As for the guy who said a 162 will get him into UF with a 3.0, this is not going to happen.

I am concerned that OP says they'll get a 160 or better, and seems to have no plan in place of how he'll get there. It is a lot more work to go from a 160 to a 170 than a 150 to a 160, but the difference is that the 144 makes it evident that OP has no idea what the hell they're doing.

While I generally agree with this, I will say:

1. It is foolish not to at least try to increase your score.

2. Even small jumps (e.g. from 158 to 160) can change things drastically.

I agree a 1000%, but to tell OP to get into UF is like telling me to date Angelina Jolie. It's just not gonna happen.

[red_alertz]

that's so harsh, why can't OP get in UF?

[swilson215]

OP, please ignore red-alertz...and listen to the advice of Nearly Every Single Other Person on TLS (and ITT). Retake your LSAT for a good shot at much better schools.

+1.

[Verity]

that's so harsh, why can't OP get in UF?

In the words of romothesavior, "Herpy Derpy!"

[flexityflex86]

144 is not a good score but an ok one, by ordinary standard, not TLS bs

You realize that about half of the people who take the LSAT don't go to law school? Meaning a below median score is really bad by the standard of "people who go to law school."

Anytime you perform worse on a test directly testing the skills you'll need in your career, and perform worse than 75% of the general population, you need to rethink your career.

Of course the LSAT cannot measure things like social skills, public speaking and writing ability (at least not in the score), but these skills will help you in any field, not only law.

A 180 doesn't mean you'll be a better lawyer than someone who gets a 165, but a 144? really?

[flexityflex86]

that's so harsh, why can't OP get in UF?

with a 144? idk why can't i buy a lamborghini with $10?

with a 162 and a 3.0? i'd say OP needs a 167 or above for a decent shot. there is a world of difference between UF and St. Thomas.

[bk1]

Anytime you perform worse on a test directly testing the skills you'll need in your career

Seriously duder?

[red_alertz]

that's so harsh, why can't OP get in UF?

with a 144? idk why can't i buy a lamborghini with $10?

with a 162 and a 3.0? i'd say OP needs a 167 or above for a decent shot. there is a world of difference between UF and St. Thomas.

162 and 3.0 would be good enough for many good schools though, most lower T1's probably, and ranks higher than UF anyway

[Patriot1208]

How many retakers?

Quick Google says 25% in '05? http://www.prelawhandbook.com/lsat__retaking

I'd imagine it's gone up so maybe something like 1/3 of them are retakers now. Which means the 1/2 don't go to school sounds about right?

Ya, that sounds good.

[flexityflex86]

that's so harsh, why can't OP get in UF?

with a 144? idk why can't i buy a lamborghini with $10?

with a 162 and a 3.0? i'd say OP needs a 167 or above for a decent shot. there is a world of difference between UF and St. Thomas.

162 and 3.0 would be good enough for many good schools though, most lower T1's probably, and ranks higher than UF anyway

can you name any?

[red_alertz]

off top of my head, i say 162/3.0 has shots at American, wake forest, tulane, maryland, SMU, ASU, Arizona, georgia, and perhaps wisconsin and george mason, didn't check LSP, just from what i seen

[flexityflex86]

off top of my head, i say 162/3.0 has shots at American, wake forest, tulane, maryland, SMU, ASU, Arizona, georgia, and perhaps wisconsin and george mason, didn't check LSP, just from what i seen

Are these URMs?

A 162 and 3.0 isn't getting into UGA, Wisconsin or George Mason, particularly a 144/162 unless they have something truly unique to offer - certainly not a situation I'd feel comfortable "betting on."

[bk1]

off top of my head, i say 162/3.0 has shots at American, wake forest, tulane, maryland, SMU, ASU, Arizona, georgia, and perhaps wisconsin and george mason, didn't check LSP, just from what i seen

Are these URMs?

A 162 and 3.0 isn't getting into UGA, Wisconsin or George Mason, particularly a 144/162.

Schools that take 162's don't really care whether it is a 162 or a 162/144.

[red_alertz]

non-urm, again just my personal experience and from what i saw on this board, btw, how is georgia? is it more prestigious than wake?