Chances at top-5 school? Forum

[sonyvaio18]

hey sapien, bagelboy, tapeimort,

thanks for the encouraging feedback. These comment are pushing me to not retake - because it'd be great to be done with the LSAT. However, I may just do 1-2 practice tests and see if I can score significantly higher. I'll spend most of my time on my apps. If not, I'll probably drop lsat once and for all.

[WokeUpInACar]

OP:

I disagree with the retake sentiment here. You probably want Y or S. You will likely get one of them. Maybe in at H too, but less likely with that 170. Being at one above the other median of a school creates a situation where they will evaluate you based on softs. Y and S care more about softs than most. I would let it ride. Imagine the downside risk-- you retake and get a 169 or 168. This would instantly put you out at Y and S, and may also put you out at Columbia and Chicago. I wouldn't risk it.

LOL at a lower score putting him out at CC. WTF are you talking about?

[sonyvaio18]

hey, thanks for the comment. Are you saying that a lower score wont have any effect? if so, can you tell me how you know this?

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

hey, thanks for the comment. Are you saying that a lower score wont have any effect? if so, can you tell me how you know this?

Schools only take your highest score for purposes of your "numbers profile." A lower score is, at worst, a mild negative soft. No idea what all that "lower score would put you out at CC" talk was about.

[sinfiery]

Well, the argument I see is that currently, one is already under the LSAT median and so the actual number has no significance as far as reporting is concerned. It only speaks to your quality as an applicant and is considered a fairly important soft for those with above median GPAs.

So if you score significantly worse on a retake, it may degrade your value as an applicant. But considering your softs, I can't imagine it enough to have an impact at CC. Though it will likely hurt you at YS and to a lesser extent at H. (Though I bet you get in 1 regardless)


Unless you were PTing with an average of 172+, I may not retake if I were you as you prefer HYS to CCN with money

[sonyvaio18]

Hey Sinfiery,

About this:

Well, the argument I see is that currently, one is already under the LSAT median and so the actual number has no significance as far as reporting is concerned. It only speaks to your quality as an applicant and is considered a fairly important soft for those with above median GPAs.

Tell me if I understand you correctly. You're saying scoring above the median is a great soft, but since I'm below the median by a few points, it doesn't matter in terms of reporting (but could this be a negative?) Gotcha - I see what you mean about scoring worse, however.

[sinfiery]

Hey Sinfiery,

About this:

Well, the argument I see is that currently, one is already under the LSAT median and so the actual number has no significance as far as reporting is concerned. It only speaks to your quality as an applicant and is considered a fairly important soft for those with above median GPAs.

Tell me if I understand you correctly. You're saying scoring above the median is a great soft, but since I'm below the median by a few points, it doesn't matter in terms of reporting (but could this be a negative?) Gotcha - I see what you mean about scoring worse, however.

Scoring above median is like the greatest thing you can do for your application. It's the biggest deal.

Even tho not reported, could still be a negative, yeah, because HYS can be choosy about who they want to admit and they would prefer someone with a higher LSAT to a lower LSAT even if both were below median

Generally speaking, the benefit for a higher score almost always outweighs that risk. But for you, it might not be. Depending on how you are PTing.

[sonyvaio18]

so, if i was PT-ing around 172 average (i was), you would say that it could be worth it?

[sonyvaio18]

so, it's definitely necessary that I'm PT-ing at 172 average (i was), but would you say it's sufficient for a retake?

[sinfiery]

I do. I think the only tangible way your cycle changes if you score like a 165, even then, likely not. Goodluck!

[sonyvaio18]

thanks!

[20141023]

.

[sonyvaio18]

Thanks so much regulus!

i'm thinking i'll sign up for a prep course and see if I can stabilize a score above 173 in my PTs. If i can, i'll retake. If i don't, I may not take the october test.

[akg144]

Thanks so much regulus!

i'm thinking i'll sign up for a prep course and see if I can stabilize a score above 173 in my PTs. If i can, i'll retake. If i don't, I may not take the october test.

GL 173+ you should be receiving some nice HYS emails come Nov...

[pupshaw]

What was your weakest section on the LSAT? If you were losing points on games, then you should definitely study hard and retake. If it was RC, I would say just go with your present score.

[sonyvaio18]

Thanks for the thoughts:

I got -2 RC, -3 LG, S1 -4 + S3 -2 LR

Funny, because I thought i did worst on LG. I hear LR is kind of a mixed bag in terms of improvement. I'm going to go overdrive on LG on my retake

[francesfarmer]

Thanks for the thoughts:

I got -2 RC, -3 LG, S1 -4 + S3 -2 LR

Funny, because I thought i did worst on LG. I hear LR is kind of a mixed bag in terms of improvement. I'm going to go overdrive on LG on my retake

Perfect your LG and there's your 173.

[Paul Campos]

For somebody with this resume to go to law school as academic career enhancement strategy is probably a bad idea, because:

(1) Law school itself will be an almost complete waste of time. 80% to 90% of the classes you take will have nothing to do with your research or your intellectual interests. Do you really want to spend three years of your life just getting a credential?

(2) You'll rack up a ton of debt if you to HYS.

(3) The future job market for legal academics looks bleak to put it mildly. To the extent there will be tenure track job openings, most schools are likely to put much more of a premium on actually knowing something about being a lawyer than they have for the past decade or two. The schools that will continue to hire people who've never practiced will be a handful of elites, which means there are going to be about ten jobs available per year for people with your sort of resume. And here's the kicker: the handful of elite schools that will continue to hire PhDs won't actually care that much whether or not you have a JD.

(4) Burning three years of your career in law school is more likely to hurt than help in regard to getting non law-school academic jobs.

(5) You'll probably end up at Sullivan & Cromwell.

[twenty]

Yeah... hate to be the nay-sayer, but law school apps are still falling like a crap from heaven, and the market for legal academia is basically dead. The age-old TLS wisdom still more or less applies -- if you don't want to practice law, don't go to law school.

Which sucks, because I can't honestly think of anyone more qualified to get into legal academia than OP.

[banjo]

I agree that you should do more research to determine if a J.D. is right for you.

If you determine it is, I think you'd be a good candidate for the Ruby and/or Furman.

[sonyvaio18]

Thanks for the thoughts! I've heard this from others as well, and I'd like to make a final decision after I see what cards I get.
It's more the training than simply the credential I'm looking for. My research is becoming increasingly legal, and I definitely feel I need a more insider-ish understanding of the law to comprehend what's going on.

Feel free to post anything else on this topic as well.

One other thought: if I get held from HYSCCN, should I consider a february lsat retake or do something else?

Also: I know I've put a lot of specific info on this post that could identify me to admissions officers. Should I delete this thread soon? Though I don't think I've posted anything bad here...