174 (retake) 159 (first time); 3.83 Forum

[andapieceoftoast]

*

[wtrc]

Studied on my own the first time (was PTing mid-upper 160s) and freaked out on test day.
Retook 1.5 yrs later with class and got 174.
Technically with my study abroad semester my GPA is 3.81 but I got those credits from a completely different college so it's not reflected in my degree school's transcript besides other than a notation for neutral transfer credits (treated like AP credits).

Chances for YHS? I know that for my top stats I should have a chance, but just want your opinions on how the abysmal first LSAT attempt will factor in.

PS - I've worked at DOJ since Aug 2012 (only relevant soft)

It doesn't matter that the GPA is not reflected in the degree school transcript. LSAC recalculates everything. Because of LSAC recalculating A-'s as a 3.66 (as opposed to my UG which treated, at the time, anything in A range as 4.0 and B range as 3.0, etc), my GPA fell by 0.15..

So you have a 3.81 and 174. The 159 won't hurt at Harvard, probably won't hurt at Stanford, could hurt at Yale. Of those three I would be pretty surprised if you didn't get into at least one of H or S this cycle. Enjoy!

[BammBamm]

It doesn't matter that the GPA is not reflected in the degree school transcript. LSAC recalculates everything. Because of LSAC recalculating A-'s as a 3.66 (as opposed to my UG which treated, at the time, anything in A range as 4.0 and B range as 3.0, etc), my GPA fell by 0.15..

So you have a 3.81 and 174. The 159 won't hurt at Harvard, probably won't hurt at Stanford, could hurt at Yale. Of those three I would be pretty surprised if you didn't get into at least one of H or S this cycle. Enjoy!

Wow that's nuts man

[andapieceoftoast]

It doesn't matter that the GPA is not reflected in the degree school transcript. LSAC recalculates everything. Because of LSAC recalculating A-'s as a 3.66 (as opposed to my UG which treated, at the time, anything in A range as 4.0 and B range as 3.0, etc), my GPA fell by 0.15..

So you have a 3.81 and 174. The 159 won't hurt at Harvard, probably won't hurt at Stanford, could hurt at Yale. Of those three I would be pretty surprised if you didn't get into at least one of H or S this cycle. Enjoy!

*

[wtrc]

It doesn't matter that the GPA is not reflected in the degree school transcript. LSAC recalculates everything. Because of LSAC recalculating A-'s as a 3.66 (as opposed to my UG which treated, at the time, anything in A range as 4.0 and B range as 3.0, etc), my GPA fell by 0.15..

So you have a 3.81 and 174. The 159 won't hurt at Harvard, probably won't hurt at Stanford, could hurt at Yale. Of those three I would be pretty surprised if you didn't get into at least one of H or S this cycle. Enjoy!

Wow...I guess that's what I get for studying abroad in dumb France...and getting mono while I was there >:P (jk to any Frenchies out there...love yaaa)

Ahh ok - will make sure I'm working with my correct stats from here on out. Hoping for the best and thanks for your help!!

Haha, before I started college I took a year off and took a few courses in Israel while I was there. I have the same issue. Good luck!

[pupshaw]

The 159 won't hurt at Harvard, probably won't hurt at Stanford, could hurt at Yale.

I never understand where this sort of confident assertion comes from, and I think it's likely quite misleading. The fact is, we have very little information about how these schools treat retakers. There are plenty of anecdotal examples of Harvard absolutely taking retakes into consideration. For myself, I can tell you that during my JS1 I was explicitly asked to explain a much lower first score. Furthermore, Stanford, of course, has far lower LSAT cutoffs than HY, which would suggest that they would put less emphasis on a retake.

[UnderrateOverachieve]

The impression I got was a retake would only hurt if there was not significant improvement. This guy clearly has shown that his first grade was a fluke and/or not an indication of his actual potential. (and by hurt I mean only in a context where anyone would even give a shit if you retook.)

It hurts my brain to think someone in admissions ANYWHERE would really be thinking, "hmmm 174, but he did get a 159 the first time..."

[ThetaX]

The impression I got was a retake would only hurt if there was not significant improvement. This guy clearly has shown that his first grade was a fluke and/or not an indication of his actual potential. (and by hurt I mean only in a context where anyone would even give a shit if you retook.)

It hurts my brain to think someone in admissions ANYWHERE would really be thinking, "hmmm 174, but he did get a 159 the first time..."

This scenario would only be relevant when comparing extremely similar candidates, one of which received a 174 on the first try.

[andapieceoftoast]

--

[wtrc]

The 159 won't hurt at Harvard, probably won't hurt at Stanford, could hurt at Yale.

I never understand where this sort of confident assertion comes from, and I think it's likely quite misleading. The fact is, we have very little information about how these schools treat retakers. There are plenty of anecdotal examples of Harvard absolutely taking retakes into consideration. For myself, I can tell you that during my JS1 I was explicitly asked to explain a much lower first score. Furthermore, Stanford, of course, has far lower LSAT cutoffs than HY, which would suggest that they would put less emphasis on a retake.

Law School Adcomms care about rankings and medians. Yeah, a retake or two are negative softs. But highest is reported, and while there are rare anecdotal examples of people with a high score not getting in (possibly because of a low retake), IMO there are way more anecdotal examples of lower scores not mattering. I personally talked to 2 people that scored under 160 (one a 152!) on a first take but it didn't really matter for them.

Having said all that- I am biased... I scored a 166 then 167 when I expected mid 170's. Soo...

[pupshaw]

Law School Adcomms care about rankings and medians. Yeah, a retake or two are negative softs. But highest is reported, and while there are rare anecdotal examples of people with a high score not getting in (possibly because of a low retake), IMO there are way more anecdotal examples of lower scores not mattering. I personally talked to 2 people that scored under 160 (one a 152!) on a first take but it didn't really matter for them.

Having said all that- I am biased... I scored a 166 then 167 when I expected mid 170's. Soo...

What I was responding to was your purported ranking of H, S, and Y in terms of how much each cared about the retake, not a general claim that a retake is unlikely to make much difference. (I would readily agree with the latter point.)