3.89/172, good softs- pondering a retake? Forum

[bdubs]

haha "elistist piece of trash"? seriously, what are you getting so worked up about? i'm just trying to figure out if a retake is worth it. half the people on this thread say yes and the other half no, so it's clearly not a straightforward situation. if this thread is offensive to you...no one is forcing you to read it. i am sincerely trying to figure out the best thing to do, and everyone's advice has been really helpful. i'm certainly not a "damsel in distress" - just trying to get others' opinions on what to do.

Retake in June if you don't get in this cycle. My guess is that if you get shut out of the top 3 it is more about your essays and your "story" than your LSAT (with the possible exception of H).

Is your WE after undergrad? I know H in particular is now looking for people with 1-2 years of full time post UG work experience, so that may be a soft factor against your app.

[TurtlesAllTheWayDown]

yes, i generally agree with the advice that you are suggesting. had the op asked, "i averaged 170, scored 172, should i retake to shoot for yhs?", then i would have advised against a retake. i am relying on the relatively small likelihood of a 168 based on the pt range. if you gave me a sample of 172s, the op would probably be among the most likely to score higher on a retake. that is why i don't think that there is much to lose.

though i am not in the same boat as the op, i can say that if i scored 4 points below my lower pt bound, then i would be retaking. even granting that it is easier to score below your average when you pt that well.

i can't really say whether or not the 172 + 176 et al. gives a much better shot a yhs than the 172 alone. it's just hard to assess the ug prestige bump. i would imagine that the 176 will make a diff in scholly money at other T10 schools. though, op might get YPed without strong school specific essays.

op, i agree with thestrand. see which schools punish retakers.

This. Retake for schollys.

[TurtlesAllTheWayDown]

Don't patronize me you elitist piece of trash. If you're too sensitive to take criticism...

PS: I don't believe calling someone a douche bag or a prick constitutes a criticism, at least not in the way you are now using the term. A criticism would be something like: your posts lack value because they are full of ad hominem attacks and shifting definitions.

[gator1]

Don't patronize me you elitist piece of trash. If you're too sensitive to take criticism...

PS: I don't believe calling someone a douche bag or a prick constitutes a criticism, at least not in the way you are now using the term. A criticism would be something like: your posts lack value because they are full of ad hominem attacks and shifting definitions.

Here we go, another cock sucker from an Ivy League trying to get smart LOL

[gator1]

Don't patronize me you elitist piece of trash. If you're too sensitive to take criticism...

PS: I don't believe calling someone a douche bag or a prick constitutes a criticism, at least not in the way you are now using the term. A criticism would be something like: your posts lack value because they are full of ad hominem attacks and shifting definitions.

Here we go, another cock sucker from an Ivy League trying to get smart on TLS LOL nobody gives a shit if you learned your ad hominems for the LSAT pal. Get a grip!

[FuManChusco]

Don't patronize me you elitist piece of trash. If you're too sensitive to take criticism...

PS: I don't believe calling someone a douche bag or a prick constitutes a criticism, at least not in the way you are now using the term. A criticism would be something like: your posts lack value because they are full of ad hominem attacks and shifting definitions.

Here we go, another cock sucker from an Ivy League trying to get smart on TLS LOL nobody gives a shit if you learned your ad hominems for the LSAT pal. Get a grip!

Some people on these boards don't like me because I can be an asshole. At least I still answer questions, offer advice, and am genuinely helpful when people PM me. You're just a dick...

[TurtlesAllTheWayDown]

Here we go, another cock sucker from an Ivy League trying to get smart on TLS LOL nobody gives a shit if you learned your ad hominems for the LSAT pal. Get a grip!

Oh the flame, how it burns! The goggles, they do nothing!!!

[FuManChusco]

Here we go, another cock sucker from an Ivy League trying to get smart on TLS LOL nobody gives a shit if you learned your ad hominems for the LSAT pal. Get a grip!

Oh the flame, how it burns! The goggles, they do nothing!!!

Not really a flame. Might be a troll. Seems like he's just a douche though.

[romothesavior]

Some people on these boards don't like me because I can be an asshole. At least I still answer questions, offer advice, and am genuinely helpful when people PM me.

Wait, are we talking about you or me?

And I agree with some of the posters above who say that a re-take may not be necessary. Unless you are certain you can improve, I doubt you need a retake. You should get a few of HYS with your numbers and your background. Good luck OP, you're in really good shape.

[BrianGriffintheDog]

Don't patronize me you elitist piece of trash. If you're too sensitive to take criticism...

PS: I don't believe calling someone a douche bag or a prick constitutes a criticism, at least not in the way you are now using the term. A criticism would be something like: your posts lack value because they are full of ad hominem attacks and shifting definitions.

Here we go, another cock sucker from an Ivy League trying to get smart on TLS LOL nobody gives a shit if you learned your ad hominems for the LSAT pal. Get a grip!

Some people on these boards don't like me because I can be an asshole. At least I still answer questions, offer advice, and am genuinely helpful when people PM me. You're just a dick...

true that yo

[ahduth]

I have similar numbers. I think the only place that a re-take would help is Harvard. YS is a crap-shoot as it is, and it sounds like you have decent enough softs to have a good shot. If you check out H on LSN you'll see that they take some 172s but you have to have a 3.9X. Still a good shot at H though with your undergrad. A re-take isn't as risky as these people are making it out to be especially if you were PTing so high. Basically if you raise it two points, you're a guarantee at H and no one can predict YS anyways.

I would agree with this. You are actually probably pretty marginal for Harvard with that LSAT. Even Columbia might be cranky about it, but it sounds like your overall application should be good.

If you think you can improve, then why not retake? It could very possibly get you more scholarship money from CCN. Hell a 176/3.9 could put you in the running for a Hamilton.

[D-ROCCA]

Don't patronize me you elitist piece of trash. If you're too sensitive to take criticism...

PS: I don't believe calling someone a douche bag or a prick constitutes a criticism, at least not in the way you are now using the term. A criticism would be something like: your posts lack value because they are full of ad hominem attacks and shifting definitions.

Here we go, another cock sucker from an Ivy League trying to get smart on TLS LOL nobody gives a shit if you learned your ad hominems for the LSAT pal. Get a grip!

You're a hater.

[TheStrand]

Don't patronize me you elitist piece of trash. If you're too sensitive to take criticism then you'll probably have a heart attack when you meet shark lawyers who don't give a rats ass about your whiny ass. Your numbers are better than those of 99% of people on TLS and few attended an Ivy League in the first place so yes, stop acting like a "damsel in distress" grow some balls and ask serious questions for others to actually help you.

Jesus what is your problem? Just because OP happens to have done much better than most of us doesn't mean he's not entitled to ask for advice on how to do better. And since when is asking about retakes "whining" ?

[romothesavior]

Gator, chillax bro. You are way, way out of line. Nothing the OP said warranted your responses.

[vertex]

Retake.

Saying that sincerely is so refreshing.

[gator1]

Gator, chillax bro. You are way, way out of line. Nothing the OP said warranted your responses.

I simply DO NOT CARE! my sole purpose going to law school is to go to court and mindfuck some of these weak, pathetic imbeciles who think they're the shit because they have all the right factors to succeed such as the right education, race, and upbringing. So yes, I'm an asshole and I'm not the only one. Get ready because you will meet many more like me in the profession: we're going in to rip your heads off in the courtroom.

[TheStrand]

Gator, chillax bro. You are way, way out of line. Nothing the OP said warranted your responses.

I simply DO NOT CARE! my sole purpose going to law school is to go to court and mindfuck some of these weak, pathetic imbeciles who think they're the shit because they have all the right factors to succeed such as the right education, race, and upbringing. So yes, I'm an asshole and I'm not the only one. Get ready because you will meet many more like me in the profession: we're going in to rip your heads off in the courtroom.

Oh honey, promise you'll come back and tell us about your blazing glory as a trial lawyer and all your mindfucking and head ripping? I cannot wait. Have you ever been in a courtroom? Snoozefest.

[romothesavior]

Gator, chillax bro. You are way, way out of line. Nothing the OP said warranted your responses.

I simply DO NOT CARE! my sole purpose going to law school is to go to court and mindfuck some of these weak, pathetic imbeciles who think they're the shit because they have all the right factors to succeed such as the right education, race, and upbringing. So yes, I'm an asshole and I'm not the only one. Get ready because you will meet many more like me in the profession: we're going in to rip your heads off in the courtroom.

You do realize that the profession of law (especially litigation) is a pretty civil, respectful field? You won't be "ripping heads off" or anything like that.

In fact, I've heard a number of older lawyers say that their biggest pet peeve with our generation of lawyers is that we have a hostile, disrespectful, "win at all costs" mentality. Too much TV perhaps? I dunno. But your conception of what goes on in trials is laughably naive. Being competitive is one thing, but being a douche-truck (as you are) will almost certainly get you fired. Trial lawyers generally respect their opposition, and if they don't, then they at least act like it.

[rinkrat19]

Gator, chillax bro. You are way, way out of line. Nothing the OP said warranted your responses.

I simply DO NOT CARE! my sole purpose going to law school is to go to court and mindfuck some of these weak, pathetic imbeciles who think they're the shit because they have all the right factors to succeed such as the right education, race, and upbringing. So yes, I'm an asshole and I'm not the only one. Get ready because you will meet many more like me in the profession: we're going in to rip your heads off in the courtroom.

This dude makes me think of the old Cornholio episodes of B&B, with Beavis freaking out on caffeine or sugar and making no sense whatsofuckingever. Or a meth addict.

[FuManChusco]

Gator, chillax bro. You are way, way out of line. Nothing the OP said warranted your responses.

I simply DO NOT CARE! my sole purpose going to law school is to go to court and mindfuck some of these weak, pathetic imbeciles who think they're the shit because they have all the right factors to succeed such as the right education, race, and upbringing. So yes, I'm an asshole and I'm not the only one. Get ready because you will meet many more like me in the profession: we're going in to rip your heads off in the courtroom.

You do realize that the profession of law (especially litigation) is a pretty civil, respectful field? You won't be "ripping heads off" or anything like that.

In fact, I've heard a number of older lawyers say that their biggest pet peeve with our generation of lawyers is that we have a hostile, disrespectful, "win at all costs" mentality. Too much TV perhaps? I dunno. But your conception of what goes on in trials is laughably naive. Being competitive is one thing, but being a douche-truck (as you are) will almost certainly get you fired. Trial lawyers generally respect their opposition, and if they don't, then they at least act like it.

But bro, he's totes going to Jack McCoy the shit out of you in front of a grand jury. Ya heard?

[RVP11]

Gator1 getting banned in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1....?

[chup]

Don't patronize me you elitist piece of trash. If you're too sensitive to take criticism...

PS: I don't believe calling someone a douche bag or a prick constitutes a criticism, at least not in the way you are now using the term. A criticism would be something like: your posts lack value because they are full of ad hominem attacks and shifting definitions.

Here we go, another cock sucker from an Ivy League trying to get smart on TLS LOL nobody gives a shit if you learned your ad hominems for the LSAT pal. Get a grip!

Gator, chillax bro. You are way, way out of line. Nothing the OP said warranted your responses.

I simply DO NOT CARE! my sole purpose going to law school is to go to court and mindfuck some of these weak, pathetic imbeciles who think they're the shit because they have all the right factors to succeed such as the right education, race, and upbringing. So yes, I'm an asshole and I'm not the only one. Get ready because you will meet many more like me in the profession: we're going in to rip your heads off in the courtroom.

I'm sorry that your various emotional and penile insecurities have manifested in a need to provoke sputtering flame wars on TLS. Sucks, bro.

Now kindly

[TheStrand]

In fact, I've heard a number of older lawyers say that their biggest pet peeve with our generation of lawyers is that we have a hostile, disrespectful, "win at all costs" mentality. Too much TV perhaps? I dunno. But your conception of what goes on in trials is laughably naive. Being competitive is one thing, but being a douche-truck (as you are) will almost certainly get you fired. Trial lawyers generally respect their opposition, and if they don't, then they at least act like it.

Yeah I hear this complaint often as well, and it is not unusual for judges to sanction attorneys who act out of line like that in court, or who are deliberately deceptive or refuse to work civilly with others on discovery timelines, making people available for depos etc. Acting like the biggest asshole in the room will definitely not help you when it comes time to ask your opposition for a favor either. And if you ever plan on doing anything more like becoming a judge, judiciary panels/commissions have been known to call people's opposing counsels to ask how someone has behaved in order to vet for judgeships.

[jbptls]

is there any sort of conventional cut off to retaking? would you guys tell the OP to retake if he had gotten a 173,4,5? I am in a simular situation and am leaning towards not retaking ( but am not entirely sure yet). My logic is that if I was on an adcom, I might look at someone retaking a 170+ and wonder why they didn't use the time for something more productive/meaningful then taking another LSAT. Am I way off on this?

[bdubs]

is there any sort of conventional cut off to retaking? would you guys tell the OP to retake if he had gotten a 173,4,5? I am in a simular situation and am leaning towards not retaking ( but am not entirely sure yet). My logic is that if I was on an adcom, I might look at someone retaking a 170+ and wonder why they didn't use the time for something more productive/meaningful then taking another LSAT. Am I way off on this?

If you are below LSAT median at your target school(s), you might want to consider a retake.