166- 3.99 GPA

[shnoop]

I was a UCLA Undergrad and graduated with a 3.99 GPA as a history major. I scored a 166 on the December LSAT and sent in my applications the first week of January. I had okay softs. I started a fraternity on campus and was a member of many campus organizations. I have also been a legal intern for several months. What are my chances at UCLA/USC or any top 10's. Please help with your opinions

[paulinaporizkova]

in at Cornell and Georgetown (maybe, but it's late, also i guess these aren't top 10s) waitlisted/rejected everywhere else (certainly rejected at HYS but may be able to split rejections and waitlists in CCN)....actually you might not be so lucky since it's so late in the application cycle. i'd wait and get your apps for 2012 in by september/october. in at UCLA and USC

[D-hops]

How much did you study for the LSAT? You should honestly consider retaking.

As is you can get some of the higher T14 (UVA and Michigan-maybe, NU-with work experience, Cornell and GULC) but you will get no money at any of those places and aren't likely to get in much higher than those schools. A retake and apply early next cycle and you will be in much better position.

[bk1]

You should honestly consider retaking.

[bhan87]

You should honestly consider retaking.

+1

Even 4 more points to hit a 170 will do a LOT. Your GPA is golden and many people on this forum would shoot a baby for a GPA that high. With a 170, you'll probably get into CCN (at least one, if not more). With a 173, you'd be in contention for HYS (more Harvard than YS)

As it stand however, much of the the bottom t-14 will take you.

[paulinaporizkova]

honestly, if you did study at all, it would be really tough to do better on the LSAT (unless you just went in cold.) 166 is like between 90 and 95th percentile. That's amazing, and i think people on here tend to scream "RETAKE" because tons of them got 170+, which is why they are CONSTANTLY on this site talking about it and trying to give the same advice to other people. I'm only saying this because I didn't get a 170 and I'm not going to retake, and I am still happy with my options. With those numbers you could get into some great schools that would give you decent job opportunities in this shitty-ish economy, opportunities where you'd be able to pay back your loans if you decided to go to a school you'd be paying sticker for. These people don't know anything about you and are probably basing their suggestions on personal anecdotal information (just like me telling you not to retake - because I didn't) instead of on what's best for you to do. Honestly, I'm out. I just don't like this "chances" thread. Although people ARE right about what your current options are with those numbers. If you got a 163 with that GPA I'd tell you to retake, but not a 166.

if one thing is clear, it's that people on this site have a skewed vision of reality because they are over-studied, over-intellectualized geeks (myself included.) they might think your LSAT is low, but MOST people would kill for that score

[bk1]

honestly, if you did study at all, it would be really tough to do better on the LSAT (unless you just went in cold.) 166 is like between 90 and 95th percentile. That's amazing, and i think people on here tend to scream "RETAKE" because tons of them got 170+, which is why they are CONSTANTLY on this site talking about it and trying to give the same advice to other people. I'm only saying this because I didn't get a 170 and I'm not going to retake, and I am still happy with my options. With those numbers you could get into some great schools that would give you decent job opportunities in this shitty-ish economy, opportunities where you'd be able to pay back your loans if you decided to go to a school you'd be paying sticker for. These people don't know anything about you and are probably basing their suggestions on personal anecdotal information (just like me telling you not to retake - because I didn't) instead of on what's best for you to do. Honestly, I'm out. I just don't like this "chances" thread. Although people ARE right about what your current options are with those numbers. If you got a 163 with that GPA I'd tell you to retake, but not a 166.

if one thing is clear, it's that people on this site have a skewed vision of reality because they are over-studied, over-intellectualized geeks (myself included.) they might think your LSAT is low, but MOST people would kill for that score

It's only a few more questions to get a 170. It's not like a 166 and a 170 are drastically different in terms of ability. There are plenty of people who study a bit but definitely not enough.

While not everyone who got a 166 can necessarily get a 170, it's stupid not to try.

[paulinaporizkova]

honestly, if you did study at all, it would be really tough to do better on the LSAT (unless you just went in cold.) 166 is like between 90 and 95th percentile. That's amazing, and i think people on here tend to scream "RETAKE" because tons of them got 170+, which is why they are CONSTANTLY on this site talking about it and trying to give the same advice to other people. I'm only saying this because I didn't get a 170 and I'm not going to retake, and I am still happy with my options. With those numbers you could get into some great schools that would give you decent job opportunities in this shitty-ish economy, opportunities where you'd be able to pay back your loans if you decided to go to a school you'd be paying sticker for. These people don't know anything about you and are probably basing their suggestions on personal anecdotal information (just like me telling you not to retake - because I didn't) instead of on what's best for you to do. Honestly, I'm out. I just don't like this "chances" thread. Although people ARE right about what your current options are with those numbers. If you got a 163 with that GPA I'd tell you to retake, but not a 166.

if one thing is clear, it's that people on this site have a skewed vision of reality because they are over-studied, over-intellectualized geeks (myself included.) they might think your LSAT is low, but MOST people would kill for that score

It's only a few more questions to get a 170. It's not like a 166 and a 170 are drastically different in terms of ability. There are plenty of people who study a bit but definitely not enough.

While not everyone who got a 166 can necessarily get a 170, it's stupid not to try.

i disagree - i think it's just fine not to try

[bk1]

i disagree - i think it's just fine not to try

Let me restate. It is a poor financial decision not to try.

[paulinaporizkova]

i disagree - i think it's just fine not to try

Let me restate. It is a poor financial decision not to try.

maybe OP is rich as fuck. one of my points was that none of us know him and so we are basing our advice to him off our own experiences. if he was looking for financial aid he probably wouldn't have asked about his chances in the t10 having known already that they weren't too good.

[bk1]

maybe OP is rich as fuck. one of my points was that none of us know him and so we are basing our advice to him off our own experiences. if he was looking for financial aid he probably wouldn't have asked about his chances in the t10 having known already that they weren't too good.

Most new visitors to this site are dumb as fuck when it comes to law school admissions, they really need to be told the basics.

And seriously, you brought up "maybe he is rich" as a defense for your argument? This is such a rare case that it is absurd that you're even bringing it up.

The fact is that increasing your LSAT score is very much possible and that the mere chance of the possibilities that extend from that (either more scholarship money or a more prestigious school) far outweigh any time/money it costs to retake and take a year off.

[paulinaporizkova]

maybe OP is rich as fuck. one of my points was that none of us know him and so we are basing our advice to him off our own experiences. if he was looking for financial aid he probably wouldn't have asked about his chances in the t10 having known already that they weren't too good.

Most new visitors to this site are dumb as fuck when it comes to law school admissions, they really need to be told the basics.

And seriously, you brought up "maybe he is rich" as a defense for your argument? This is such a rare case that it is absurd that you're even bringing it up.

The fact is that increasing your LSAT score is very much possible and that the mere chance of the possibilities that extend from that (either more scholarship money or a more prestigious school) far outweigh any time/money it costs to retake and take a year off.

in SoCal, some people are rich. even if some of his school is paid for, it makes a difference. and OP is already in at GULC and Cornell, maybe MVP if he EDs. I know HYS are better, but OUTSIDE OF this microcosm, any of those schools are considered awesome and will provide you with an adequate (read GOOD) job, provided you are interested in working as a lawyer in some capacity. maybe he studied like mad and got a 166 - i studied a lot and didn't get that much higher but i had a rockin' GPA just like OP. i'm just trying to provide an alternative opinion on the subject, to counteract the loads of RETAKE, RETAKE from the peanut gallery. i'm saying he has great options right now.

[paulinaporizkova]

also, law of regression to the mean = OP will probably score lower rather than higher on a retake. *waits for bk to rip this apart*

[bk1]

in SoCal, some people are rich. even if some of his school is paid for, it makes a difference. and OP is already in at GULC and Cornell, maybe MVP if he EDs. I know HYS are better, but OUTSIDE OF this microcosm, any of those schools are considered awesome and will provide you with an adequate (read GOOD) job, provided you are interested in working as a lawyer in some capacity. maybe he studied like mad and got a 166 - i studied a lot and didn't get that much higher but i had a rockin' GPA just like OP. i'm just trying to provide an alternative opinion on the subject, to counteract the loads of RETAKE, RETAKE from the peanut gallery. i'm saying he has great options right now.

GULC/Cornell at sticker are questionable financially. Maybe you'll get a good job, but will you get something that pays off 6 figure debt in a reasonable amount of time? The odds on that aren't great.

What do you mean outside of this microcosm? Do you mean outside the microcosm that cares purely about job placement where HYS > CCN > MVPBND > GC (approximately)?

The average LSAT retake gets 2 points on average, iirc. That brings a lot better shot than being a 166, especially considering OP is applying in January as opposed to earlier in the cycle.

I'll go back to my earlier point, it would be stupid not to retake. There are legitimate differences in placement power among the T14 if the OP wants to take there at sticker.

[bk1]

also, law of regression to the mean = OP will probably score lower rather than higher on a retake. *waits for bk to rip this apart*

Your wish is my command.

http://www.prelawhandbook.com/lsat__retaking

Yup, that says 2.3 average increase (though just shy of 2 for those 166 or better). The thing is, a lower LSAT doesn't hurt you at all.

[zephyr36]

We have identical numbers. I got into UVA ED this cycle after applying in early January. If you really want the top ten that might be your best bet. Just write a solid PS.

You're out at GT, and likely in at Cornell. UCLA is 50/50, USC is probably a litter higher.

Edit: Seriously though, the posters ahead of me don't know what they're talking about when it comes to GT. GT attract a lot more high-number applicants than Cornell because of its location and lay prestige. GT has a 170 median, so applying this late with a 166 probably won't get you far. That said, I applied to GT as well because you just never know who will love you.

[paulinaporizkova]

in SoCal, some people are rich. even if some of his school is paid for, it makes a difference. and OP is already in at GULC and Cornell, maybe MVP if he EDs. I know HYS are better, but OUTSIDE OF this microcosm, any of those schools are considered awesome and will provide you with an adequate (read GOOD) job, provided you are interested in working as a lawyer in some capacity. maybe he studied like mad and got a 166 - i studied a lot and didn't get that much higher but i had a rockin' GPA just like OP. i'm just trying to provide an alternative opinion on the subject, to counteract the loads of RETAKE, RETAKE from the peanut gallery. i'm saying he has great options right now.

GULC/Cornell at sticker are questionable financially. Maybe you'll get a good job, but will you get something that pays off 6 figure debt in a reasonable amount of time? The odds on that aren't great.

What do you mean outside of this microcosm? Do you mean outside the microcosm that cares purely about job placement where HYS > CCN > MVPBND > GC (approximately)?

The average LSAT retake gets 2 points on average, iirc. That brings a lot better shot than being a 166, especially considering OP is applying in January as opposed to earlier in the cycle.

I'll go back to my earlier point, it would be stupid not to retake. There are legitimate differences in placement power among the T14 if the OP wants to take there at sticker.

the microcosm i was referring to was TLS and TLS posters, where a disproportionate amount of posters are accepted with $$$ to top schools, and i bet this is true of a lot of people who tell you to retake the LSAT in threads like this. i'd like to see that LSAT information, because i've heard that once you start scoring in the upper 160s, it's very hard to improve simply because one or two more questions right comes down to luck more than knowing your shit a little better. And as far as your original point, I guess we'll agree to disagree. However, I didn't rule out a retake, I just wanted to play the devil's advocate and let OP know that he has good options if he does not retake.

[bhan87]

maybe OP is rich as fuck. one of my points was that none of us know him and so we are basing our advice to him off our own experiences. if he was looking for financial aid he probably wouldn't have asked about his chances in the t10 having known already that they weren't too good.

Most new visitors to this site are dumb as fuck when it comes to law school admissions, they really need to be told the basics.

And seriously, you brought up "maybe he is rich" as a defense for your argument? This is such a rare case that it is absurd that you're even bringing it up.

The fact is that increasing your LSAT score is very much possible and that the mere chance of the possibilities that extend from that (either more scholarship money or a more prestigious school) far outweigh any time/money it costs to retake and take a year off.

in SoCal, some people are rich. even if some of his school is paid for, it makes a difference. and OP is already in at GULC and Cornell, maybe MVP if he EDs. I know HYS are better, but OUTSIDE OF this microcosm, any of those schools are considered awesome and will provide you with an adequate (read GOOD) job, provided you are interested in working as a lawyer in some capacity. maybe he studied like mad and got a 166 - i studied a lot and didn't get that much higher but i had a rockin' GPA just like OP. i'm just trying to provide an alternative opinion on the subject, to counteract the loads of RETAKE, RETAKE from the peanut gallery. i'm saying he has great options right now.

The point of the retake comments is not that he should take for simple retake sakes. Rather, the OP has a GPA that is a rather large split from his LSAT score, something that is quite possible to raise for many people (of course this isn't the case for all people, but due to the difference in qualities of schools the OP will be able to get into makes it worth a shot). For others (say those that are in the 3.3-3.6 GPA range), a 170+ is much less valuable.

For Example. Say we plug in the OP's numbers directly into LSP we get the following results:

Yale: Reject
Harvard: Reject
Stanford: Consider
Columbia: Weak Consider
Chicago / NYU: Consider
(String of Considers / Weak considers until UCLA, which becomes a Strong Consider)

Now, if he were to score 4 more points to get a 170:

Yale: Consider
Harvard: Consider
Stanford: Strong Consider
Columbia: Consider
Chicago: Strong Consider
(Everything below is an admit except NYU and UVA, which are both strong considers)

In the status quo, the OP is most likely looking at the bottom T-14 at sticker.

After raising 4 more points, the OP is in contention for CCN and is a lock at everything below with $$ at the bottom T-14.

It's fairly irresponsible to say that doesn't make a huge difference.

[bk1]

the microcosm i was referring to was TLS and TLS posters, where a disproportionate amount of posters are accepted with $$$ to top schools, and i bet this is true of a lot of people who tell you to retake the LSAT in threads like this. i'd like to see that LSAT information, because i've heard that once you start scoring in the upper 160s, it's very hard to improve simply because one or two more questions right comes down to luck more than knowing your shit a little better. And as far as your original point, I guess we'll agree to disagree. However, I didn't rule out a retake, I just wanted to play the devil's advocate and let OP know that he has good options if he does not retake.

The reason why it is so simple to say retake is because the average LSAT retake scores 2 points better (even at 166+ it is around 2 points). With 2 chances at this (you get 2 retakes), your odds of going up by 2 points is pretty high. The thing is, 2 LSAT points is a big deal in law school admissions. Heck 3 LSAT points is what separates Harvard from GULC, if I'm remembering right, schools with drastically different career prospects.

Of course OP has good options as a 166/4.0, the OP would very likely have better options if they were to retake.

[dresden doll]

In at Cornell; not so sure about G-town since they're such LSAT whores. Make sure you toss an app at Boalt as well.

[shnoop]

Yah but if I retake I give up a year of my life which has more financial value. Life is about moving forward not retrying the same thing over and over again

[dresden doll]

Yah but if I retake I give up a year of my life which has more financial value. Life is about moving forward not retrying the same thing over and over again

I have no clue about the value you place on a year of your life but potential financial differences w/r/t waiting a year, assuming a successful retake, are nothing to sneeze at.

[paulinaporizkova]

In at Cornell; not so sure about G-town since they're such LSAT whores. Make sure you toss an app at Boalt as well.

i got into gtown very quickly and i have almost the exact same numbers (slightly higher)

[D-hops]

Yah but if I retake I give up a year of my life which has more financial value. Life is about moving forward not retrying the same thing over and over again

If you haven't applied to any schools yet, your chances are going to be lowered significantly at any of the T14 schools. If you sit out one cycle and put a lot of effort into studying/retaking and reapply early next year your chances will improve.

Not saying you can't apply now, I just think your chances might be hurt at the top schools.

[dresden doll]

In at Cornell; not so sure about G-town since they're such LSAT whores. Make sure you toss an app at Boalt as well.

i got into gtown very quickly and i have almost the exact same numbers (slightly higher)

An LSAT point or two makes a great deal of difference with these types of numbers. Also relevant is the timing of your application. The fact that OP apparently hasn't applied yet won't be doing him any favors.