Top Law Schools

That seems to be the sentiment I'm getting from this board.

problem?

blugirl400 wrote:That seems to be the sentiment I'm getting from this board.

Good. The sentiment I'm getting from your post is straw man bs.

OP has a 158. I figured it was someone with a 170+ complaining about the retake shtick.

You got a long way to go, kid.

InGoodFaith wrote:OP has a 158. I figured it was someone with a 170+ complaining about the retake shtick.

You got a long way to go, kid.

If only the top 40% of the LSAT will go to law school and only about 25% of grads will get hired as lawyers it would be dumb to expect to be a lawyer if you can't do better than 75% of that 40%. If you think you can but just don't have the work ethic to stomach another test try stomaching a semester of law school. You're probably more likely to do shity and not get a job than someone who tries really hard to get a 170 but can't as law school is less about intelligence and more about tenacity.

blugirl400 wrote:That seems to be the sentiment I'm getting from this board.

depends on your goals and your actual score. Want to study at U South Dakota and want to work in that state? No need to retake a 155. Want biglaw? don't accept anything under 170.

No

Retake until you get a 180, then ED UVA.

The reason the statistics are that way in the fist place is because many of those people don't retake / study properly. If you aren't taking off one full year to study full time and then taking the LSAT in June and October, you aren't maximizing your full potential. The LSAT is learn-able. Your raw score and any score before at least 10-15 PT's should not matter.

nebula666 wrote:If you aren't taking off one full year to study full time ... you aren't maximizing your full potential.

Bullshit. You do not need to take a year off just to study for the LSAT. You do need to put in enough time and actually study for the LSAT. How much is enough time is open to debate, but the undergrad course load is low enough that you can easily do so. It's also possible to work full time and put enough study time in. Also, a year is more than necessary, but for most people, anything less than 3 months is too little.

OP, you're not as far off as you think. If you have retakes left, and you have scored below a 173/174, you probably should retake even if you have no chance of getting those scores. Another test doesn't hurt you, and a few points (which you can get randomly) is a huge huge deal for scholarships.

Read this thread: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... &sk=t&sd=a

Everyone has a different situation. But this board is trying to set you up for success. I applaud TLS for that.

But don't think that just because you have a 170 that that means your work is done. It's only getting started.

In short: TLS says don't go to TTT.

dingbat wrote:

nebula666 wrote:If you aren't taking off one full year to study full time ... you aren't maximizing your full potential.

Bullshit. You do not need to take a year off just to study for the LSAT. You do need to put in enough time and actually study for the LSAT. How much is enough time is open to debate, but the undergrad course load is low enough that you can easily do so. It's also possible to work full time and put enough study time in. Also, a year is more than necessary, but for most people, anything less than 3 months is too little.

I agree but if you start to study and don't hit near your target score in the first few months, you should keep going until you improve. Some people start to get 170's after a few tests and for others it takes a long time.

A bit hyperbolic, but I see what you mean. The thing is, if you want to get a 160 and be happy with that, that's fantastic. Good for you, take yourself out to dinner, and enjoy your life. But if you ask for someone's honest opinion, don't be upset when they tell you how they really feel about your situation.

I haven't taken my LSAT yet. I'm not sure exactly what I'm going to get, but I'm studying now for the June test and I'm taking a class with Testmasters. However, even I know that if you want to maximize your future, you need the highest score possible.

Saying you should study and retake for a better score is like saying you should study hard in undergrad so you can get a better GPA if you want to go to law school. It's not rude, it's common sense. It's also probably what you need to hear so you don't end up playing Russian Roulette with your future. Hard truths are difficult to hear, but not nearly painful as a mountain of debt and no career to show for it.

I'm no expert, but it's my opinion that you should shoot for a 170 or higher. If you achieve that and have a matching GPA, you're in fantastic shape.

I guess I need to retake.

NoodleyOne wrote:I guess I need to retake.

Dust off all the prep materials Noodley! I'll do the same. Though I'm a paltry 173 (helped in part by your retakers study guide Noodley), I was absolutely going to retake with a 170 or anything below. I was probably going to retake with a 171-172. 173 was the pure coin-toss number, and of course I get it.

There are folks that need to retake with a 173-174 if their aspirations are high enough and there are folks who could perhaps live a long, content life with a 14x.

Nebula, though I realize everyone's test-taking abilities vary, I put in a solid 7-8 weeks at 25 hours per week and moved myself 13 points from my first cold 160 PT. People have to make sure they're not screwing around with it, and 90 days can move most people to outstanding numbers (as compared to their off-the-street score). I found those 25 hours while working about 55-60 hours a week and coming home with a wife and child. Every evening after I put my son down (wife works nights) until 11pm was LSAT time, as well as 12-15 hours between Sat and Sun.

Folks need to be honest with themselves and avoid what I used to call the sorority gal workout when I was an undergrad (walking on the treadmill at 2mph for an hour talking to the person next to you reading a magazine) and ask why you're not at a perfect fitness level after 2-3 months. Bust your ass in a focused way and watch it happen!

craigsan18 wrote:

NoodleyOne wrote:I guess I need to retake.

Dust off all the prep materials Noodley! I'll do the same. Though I'm a paltry 173 (helped in part by your retakers study guide Noodley), I was absolutely going to retake with a 170 or anything below. I was probably going to retake with a 171-172. 173 was the pure coin-toss number, and of course I get it.

There are folks that need to retake with a 173-174 if their aspirations are high enough and there are folks who could perhaps live a long, content life with a 14x.

Nebula, though I realize everyone's test-taking abilities vary, I put in a solid 7-8 weeks at 25 hours per week and moved myself 13 points from my first cold 160 PT. People have to make sure they're not screwing around with it, and 90 days can move most people to outstanding numbers (as compared to their off-the-street score). I found those 25 hours while working about 55-60 hours a week and coming home with a wife and child. Every evening after I put my son down (wife works nights) until 11pm was LSAT time, as well as 12-15 hours between Sat and Sun.

Folks need to be honest with themselves and avoid what I used to call the sorority gal workout when I was an undergrad (walking on the treadmill at 2mph for an hour talking to the person next to you reading a magazine) and ask why you're not at a perfect fitness level after 2-3 months. Bust your ass in a focused way and watch it happen!

+1 for sorority gal workout reference

Nah really its 170+ or retake...

epiphinous7 wrote:Nah really its 170+ or retake...

unless shooting for YHCN, or you want a significant scholly at the T14

dingbat wrote:

epiphinous7 wrote:Nah really its 170+ or retake...

unless shooting for YHCN, or you want a significant scholly at the T14

Or you're in the LSAT FIGHT OF YOUR LIFE just to get into a strong regional school, thanks to a shitty 20-year old uGPA.

Naw retake 180 also; three 180s are obvs more impressive than one.

Crowing wrote:Naw retake 180 also; three 180s are obvs more impressive than one.

The world according to Dave Hall

dingbat wrote:

Crowing wrote:Naw retake 180 also; three 180s are obvs more impressive than one.

The world according to Dave Hall

"It’s such a vibrant online community that one could devote an entire second site to meta-coverage of TLS."

LOL

lol. When I had a 158 everyone told me to retake and aim for a 170

on the retake I got a 169.. they told me to retake and aim for a 175

In june if I get a 173, I bet i'll be laughed off the board

When will this end?!!!

I do understand the rationale behind it, but it would be nice if forum members first posted the answer to the question:

aka "I think you should attend UCLA over USC"

And THEN say "but if I were you i'd retake and aim for stanford"

Just my 2 cents

klipsch3212 wrote:lol. When I had a 158 everyone told me to retake and aim for a 170

on the retake I got a 169.. they told me to retake and aim for a 175

In june if I get a 173, I bet i'll be laughed off the board

When will this end?!!!

I do understand the rationale behind it, but it would be nice if forum members first posted the answer to the question:

aka "I think you should attend UCLA over USC"

And THEN say "but if I were you i'd retake and aim for stanford"

Just my 2 cents

retake