3.88/161 (152 Sep 09) - Edited to include LSP Forum

[queenlizzie13]

So I've been wondering if I should retake for a third time this October. June went better than September, but I definitely think I can do better as I was averaging 164-166 on most PT's and hit a 170 and 173 the week before the test. I used the blueprint method, and I am a CA resident. Top 3% of my class, as I graduated magna cum laude.

While it slightly cheers me to hear that the CA public schools put more weight on GPA than other schools, I'm still worried about that relatively low LSAT score. I freaked out after the LG on the real LSAT and I now realize that it hurt the last two scored sections of the exam (RC and LR).

My dream school would absolutely be Boalt (my twin went to Cal for undergrad, I went to UCI), but Notre Dame (will be applying ED), UCLA/USC and Boston College would be awesome as well.
I would be happy with Hastings/Davis/American/GMU. What are my chances at these schools with my current numbers? Also, no I don't want to apply to UCI. LSP puts my chances as weak consider for UCLA and Berkeley, consider for USC and Notre Dame, strong consider for Boston College/Hastings/Davis/GMU and admit to American.

I want to do international law or public policy (perhaps environmental as well) - I wrote my senior thesis on international refugee law. I'm also interested in land use/real estate law having worked on the policy side for housing. What are my chances at the above schools and should I definitely be retaking October? I bought the bibles so that I could retake, if necessary.

[queenlizzie13]

bump. thoughts, anyone? Thanks. Speaking of which, decent softs, nothing completely amazing though that would be a gamechanger...

I have the usual: work experience, study abroad, club leadership positions, phi beta kappa member, magna cum laude, senior thesis, etc.

[escapefrom]

If you can bear it, retake it. Getting a 170 or even closer to it would significantly escalate your chances of getting into a better ranked school.

[MSEEtoJD]

If you can get closer to your practice test average, it seems like you would have a pretty good chance at getting into most of those schools. It seems like your biggest hurdle is not panicking on test day. I know I panicked a little after that Logic Games section in June too (especially after the non-scored LG section was so easy!). I would take it again and tell yourself that if you are having trouble with some questions, there are probably a lot of other people with the same troubles.

[queenlizzie13]

Thanks, both of you. I am dead set on retaking now and am definitely going to ramp up my studying this time around (also part of the problem...I was trying to do my thesis, classes (and LSAT classes), working 15-20 hours, and trying to train for the Boston Marathon).

Now that I only have part-time work for now, I should have lots more time to focus on consistently hitting 170+.

Part of me was worried I couldn't still ED to ND if I retook the October test, but I contacted admissions and they said the score would arrive in plenty of time to ED.

[Grizz]

Retake; don't ED to ND, as it's not worth sticker.

[romothesavior]

Retake. I've seen you post in a few other threads, and I know that you know that retake is TCR.

[JusticeHarlan]

I know you didn't mention UVA, but you did mention American and GMU, and UVA is even better for DC placement. Your GPA is over the median at UVA, so it might be worth an ED there (if you're prepared to pay sticker for Notre Dame, are you for UVA?). It sounds like you want to do some kind of policy law, which often means DC, and UVA is one of the best (outside of HYS, maybe the best) for getting DC work. Just throwing it out there.

If you want to get into a top school with some money, then obviously retake is recommended.

[General Tso]

you have almost no chance at UCLA or Berkeley.

you would probably be WL/in at most of your targets (Hastings, GMU, Davis, American)

[Grizz]

Oh, and chances are, you're not gonna do intl. law.

[queenlizzie13]

I know you didn't mention UVA, but you did mention American and GMU, and UVA is even better for DC placement. Your GPA is over the median at UVA, so it might be worth an ED there (if you're prepared to pay sticker for Notre Dame, are you for UVA?). It sounds like you want to do some kind of policy law, which often means DC, and UVA is one of the best (outside of HYS, maybe the best) for getting DC work. Just throwing it out there.

If you want to get into a top school with some money, then obviously retake is recommended.

Yeah, policy law would definitely be one of the things that I want to do. I work in housing policy now, and I kind of want to continue along the same vein. I am definitely interested in DC.

I wanted ND because of their one year international law program in Britain, and because of their football. I've been deprived of football at UCI.

UVA would be good, I didn't even think of that one. Thanks for the suggestion. I definitely will be adding it to my list of schools. And yes, I would probably be willing to pay sticker for UVA. So do you think I should mostly target DC schools for policy work?

[JusticeHarlan]

I know you didn't mention UVA, but you did mention American and GMU, and UVA is even better for DC placement. Your GPA is over the median at UVA, so it might be worth an ED there (if you're prepared to pay sticker for Notre Dame, are you for UVA?). It sounds like you want to do some kind of policy law, which often means DC, and UVA is one of the best (outside of HYS, maybe the best) for getting DC work. Just throwing it out there.

If you want to get into a top school with some money, then obviously retake is recommended.

Yeah, policy law would definitely be one of the things that I want to do. I work in housing policy now, and I kind of want to continue along the same vein. I am definitely interested in DC.

I wanted ND because of their one year international law program in Britain, and because of their football. I've been deprived of football at UCI.

UVA would be good, I didn't even think of that one. Thanks for the suggestion. I definitely will be adding it to my list of schools. And yes, I would probably be willing to pay sticker for UVA. So do you think I should mostly target DC schools for policy work?

Well, the problem with "policy" work for a lawyer is that its kind of a chimera; it can mean many things, or be meaningless. But wherever people pass legislation, there are lawyers who work on influencing them or challenging those laws. There are also government lawyers who work on policy, and lawyers working for legislators too. These jobs are hard to get, they are rare, and might not be what you think of as "policy law," but they do exist, and if they are what you want to do, then DC is the place to do it. That said, I wouldn't go to any law school (except Y and maybe H), and I certainly wouldn't take out six-figures in debt, counting on getting a policy law job.

You say you do housing policy now; how are lawyers involved in the process? Where do they work, both geographically and for whom (firms, government, etc)? Then figure out whats the best way to get that kind of job.

On another note, if you're interested in a year-long study abroad program in Britain, I think BC has one too (not as good football though, most years). I should say, though, that if you want to work on US domestic policy, going abroad a year seems somewhat counter-intuitive.

I'm not an authority on any of this, but DC (and Virginia) schools might be worth looking into.

[queenlizzie13]

We have legal counsel, and they are able to support us when we go to a city and tell them we want x pulled/changed off of their agendas. For example, my industry recently won a case called BIACC v. City of Patterson. We sued the City of Patterson over their inclusionary zoning policy, which limits growth in a city or creates no growth/chance for development whatsoever.

So lawyers are involved somewhat on a consulting basis and to also potentially fight local jurisdictions who may be doing illegal things (e.g. inclusionary zoning).

That being said I'm definitely interested in other areas of the law - international, environmental, litigation, constitutional law, and land use/real estate law. I would even consider criminal law. I did my senior thesis on a human rights issue - refugee law in the United States.

Ultimately, however, I would like to end up working in Boston, NY, DC or CA. I grew up in CA so a bit afraid about the cold weather, but I've been to Boston multiple times and absolutely love the city. I prefer Boston over NY and DC over both because there are the greatest amount of jobs in DC that I would be interested in.

What CA has to offer is nice weather for running, etc. My family is here too.

[Grizz]

That being said I'm definitely interested in other areas of the law - international, environmental, litigation, constitutional law, and land use/real estate law. I would even consider criminal law. I did my senior thesis on a human rights issue - refugee law in the United States.

International law is like the monopoly money of law. Everyone loves to toss it around, but it's not worth anything, at least without modifiers like "international mergers and acquisitions" or something like that. Standard article when anyone says they want to do "international" law - http://www.annaivey.com/iveyfiles/2008/ ... e_the_hype

Constitutional law is another wtf. What does this even mean? The easiest way to deal with constitutional issues would probably be criminal defense, but from your post, this isn't really what you mean.

[JusticeHarlan]

We have legal counsel, and they are able to support us when we go to a city and tell them we want x pulled/changed off of their agendas. For example, my industry recently won a case called BIACC v. City of Patterson. We sued the City of Patterson over their inclusionary zoning policy, which limits growth in a city or creates no growth/chance for development whatsoever.

So lawyers are involved somewhat on a consulting basis and to also potentially fight local jurisdictions who may be doing illegal things (e.g. inclusionary zoning).

That being said I'm definitely interested in other areas of the law - international, environmental, litigation, constitutional law, and land use/real estate law. I would even consider criminal law. I did my senior thesis on a human rights issue - refugee law in the United States.

Ultimately, however, I would like to end up working in Boston, NY, DC or CA. I grew up in CA so a bit afraid about the cold weather, but I've been to Boston multiple times and absolutely love the city. I prefer Boston over NY and DC over both because there are the greatest amount of jobs in DC that I would be interested in.

What CA has to offer is nice weather for running, etc. My family is here too.

You seem to have a good handle on this kind of law, if you're working so closely to lawyers on you job. Where did they go to law school (you can look them up on martindale.com if you want)? Where do they think you should go to law school, if you want to do what they do? The kind of law you describe doesn't seem to be "policy" law to me, necessarily, mainly just property and zoning litigation, something most any law school will teach you how to do.

Now, as for Boston, NY, DC, or CA, obviously you want to go to the best school in each region (CA is also usually subdivided into NoCal and SoCal, but I know more about the east coast, so I'll leave CA to someone else). The problem is that NYC and DC are very saturated markets, and with a number of good schools in/near the cities themselves, and also draw T-14 grads from elsewhere, and quite frankly your LSAT is gonna be hard to slip into a school high enough on the pecking order to break into those cities. That's why I suggested UVA, because they're splitter friendly for ED apps (and place well in both DC and NYC). Boston is more insular, and BU and BC might be hard with that LSAT, but your gpa might tempt them. Anyways, a retake isn't a bad idea, if you can stomach it and think you can prep enough to improve your score.
EDIT: If you're not looking to go into biglaw, Northeastern might be an interesting option; they have a great system where you spend alternating semesters during 2L and 3L doing coops and internships, making connections and getting real experience, and the name is decently respected around Boston. The schools is just as expensive as BU/BC though, and I wouldn't recommend it without some serious scholarship money. Worth applying to and haggling with if they don't pony up, I would think.

Anyways, I largely agree with rad law re:international law and constitutional law, though international law depends on how you define it. For example, I had an interview for a paralegal gig with the DC office of a V100 firm recently, and I met with two attorneys who do FCPA compliance and one who does customs import/export law (helping companies get their goods in and out of the country, essentially). Some might call these "international law," in that they deal with a lot of foreign companies; some might not call them that, in that they deal primarily with various US statutes and not much with the law of other countries. This isn't the romanticized, ill-defined, international law that usually causes 0L to swoon. Its fairly mundane. Like most law.

[queenlizzie13]

You seem to have a good handle on this kind of law, if you're working so closely to lawyers on you job. Where did they go to law school (you can look them up on martindale.com if you want)? Where do they think you should go to law school, if you want to do what they do? The kind of law you describe doesn't seem to be "policy" law to me, necessarily, mainly just property and zoning litigation, something most any law school will teach you how to do.

Now, as for Boston, NY, DC, or CA, obviously you want to go to the best school in each region (CA is also usually subdivided into NoCal and SoCal, but I know more about the east coast, so I'll leave CA to someone else). The problem is that NYC and DC are very saturated markets, and with a number of good schools in/near the cities themselves, and also draw T-14 grads from elsewhere, and quite frankly your LSAT is gonna be hard to slip into a school high enough on the pecking order to break into those cities. That's why I suggested UVA, because they're splitter friendly for ED apps (and place well in both DC and NYC). Boston is more insular, and BU and BC might be hard with that LSAT, but your gpa might tempt them. Anyways, a retake isn't a bad idea, if you can stomach it and think you can prep enough to improve your score.
EDIT: If you're not looking to go into biglaw, Northeastern might be an interesting option; they have a great system where you spend alternating semesters during 2L and 3L doing coops and internships, making connections and getting real experience, and the name is decently respected around Boston. The schools is just as expensive as BU/BC though, and I wouldn't recommend it without some serious scholarship money. Worth applying to and haggling with if they don't pony up, I would think.

Anyways, I largely agree with rad law re:international law and constitutional law, though international law depends on how you define it. For example, I had an interview for a paralegal gig with the DC office of a V100 firm recently, and I met with two attorneys who do FCPA compliance and one who does customs import/export law (helping companies get their goods in and out of the country, essentially). Some might call these "international law," in that they deal with a lot of foreign companies; some might not call them that, in that they deal primarily with various US statutes and not much with the law of other countries. This isn't the romanticized, ill-defined, international law that usually causes 0L to swoon. Its fairly mundane. Like most law.

Yeah, I agree with you guys on the whole international law/constitutional law thing. In regards to international law, I am more interested in the human rights aspect of things (I did my honors thesis on refugees) but that being said, probably not a field where you will make very much money and therefore probably not worth getting into given the high cost of law school.

As for constitutional law, I simply meant that I would be interested in judicial clerkships, but those are really difficult to obtain. Land use/real estate is much more feasible, and in Orange County, where I live in CA, that is a major practice area of some of the top firms over here. Many of them are also members of the association I work for. I know quite a few lawyers in the Southern California area, actually. Of course, that is also the advantage of going to school over here.

Anyways, I definitely think I can stomach a retake - I have more time to study now too, actually. Since I'm only working part-time, I have much more time than when I was prepping for June (where I was trying to juggle honors thesis, work, classes, and marathon training). I think I bit off more than I could chew. I wish I had found this forum BEFORE the June LSAT. I found it right after I took the LSAT.

The Bibles are helping - I hope. LR is my weakest section with LG being the strongest, so I've been concentrating more heavily on the LR Bible.