2.9GPA, 158LSAT, already got in American & ASU Forum

Troianii · Post by **Troianii** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 3:52 am

Phoenix97 wrote:
Ken Kesey wrote:Honestly, what even makes you think you'll be successful at law school? You have terrible numbers. If you want to be a prosecutor or small time general practitioner then I can see going to law school, but really I would only go if you have some especially strong desire for law school.
Geez...why is there always that one guy who does this?

Person one: [Offers constructive criticism]

Person two: [Offers genuine advice]

That one guy: "Yeah, and you're a dumb piece of shit."

*crickets chirping*

*distant cough*

Not nice or necessary.

OP, I think you should pursue whatever dream or goal you've been striving for...but you may be better served by thinking a bit harder about your maximum potential and not rush forward simply because you think thirty is some mystical age when everything goes downhill and people are supposed to give up on developing themselves.

Yeah sorry if it came off the wrong way - to this point there has still only been one poster I've meant to basically tell to f off, the rest were explaining or answering q's. Like i said, I've got SOME regional preference - I'd obviously take Harvard over BC, but the regional preference is strong enough that the next I'd prefer over BC or BU would require a large hump - 11pt - to get an even fair chance at my next choice, and while it's worth going for, an 11pt jump isn't reasonable to expect. Possible, but anyone that studies with an expectation that they get an 11pt jump has their head in the clouds. If i don't get where I want to this cycle, I'm fine waiting for a retake - but it is far from probable thwt I'll get the boost for my next choice. Basically now, because of my regional preference, ASU is a safety I've gotten into, and BU and BC are my two top choices - after that it's Cornell or higher ranked, and to reach the median (which, even with URM, I think I need a median to have a reasonable shot at because of low GPA), I'd need an 11pt jump. :/ there's always hope, but I think there's a point you need to put expectations in check, right? I don't think that, given my situation and preferences, higher than BU is reasonable to hope for. There is always a chance I might get into a higher ranked school like MN or IA, which I have loose ties to. But even then my preference would be BU or BC.

pancakes3 · Post by **pancakes3** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 1:40 pm

I don't understand why you're treating your improvement on the LSAT as a completely stochastic event. If you're taking practice tests, you'll know with a fair level of certainty of how much your score will improve by. I also don't understand why you're committed to a retake but remain adamant about applying this cycle. Even if you score a 170 in February, the benefits will be greatly diminished compared to what you could get from sitting out a year.

Sitting out a year sucks, you being non-trad and older sucks, the fact that you have "outside funding" does make it easier for you to say "fuck it, yolo, i'm going" but from a big-picture standpoint it is still absolutely worth your time to buckle down and study for the LSAT.

Also, with respect to your career preferences:
- federal government is intensely competitive because there are fewer openings than biglaw but require biglaw credentials. from a non-T14, you'd probably have to be top 15-20% just to land an interview.
- local government - similarly few job openings because the offices are at saturation. jobs open up basically because someone left.
- midlaw doesn't exist. just because a job pays between 80-140k doesn't make it midlaw. that salary encompasses fed and in-house positions. midlaw (between 25-100 attorneys working regionally) consists of maybe 3-10 firms in a local metropolitan area and they hire as needed, which means it could be 0, or at most 3 associates a year. That candidate pool includes out of work attorneys, attorneys in other markets looking to move back to an area, [state] clerks, as well as recent grads, and nepotism/networking is a nontrivial factor.
- shitlaw (solos-15/20 attorneys) - hyper cut-throat environment, business comes and goes, and job security is extremely low.
- biglaw - well, you don't want biglaw anyway so it doesn't matter that it's a pipe dream.

Troianii · Post by **Troianii** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 2:33 pm

pancakes3 wrote:I don't understand why you're treating your improvement on the LSAT as a completely stochastic event. If you're taking practice tests, you'll know with a fair level of certainty of how much your score will improve by. I also don't understand why you're committed to a retake but remain adamant about applying this cycle. Even if you score a 170 in February, the benefits will be greatly diminished compared to what you could get from sitting out a year.

Sitting out a year sucks, you being non-trad and older sucks, the fact that you have "outside funding" does make it easier for you to say "fuck it, yolo, i'm going" but from a big-picture standpoint it is still absolutely worth your time to buckle down and study for the LSAT.

yeah, you're basically criticizing what I didn't say - but thanks for your thought.

BigZuck · Post by **BigZuck** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 2:49 pm

Troianii wrote:
Mullens wrote:What are your career goals and why do you want to go to law school? Any advice about where you should attend really comes down to the answer to those two questions, which are, of course, related. Applying to a smattering of regional schools almost never makes sense, even for someone with "no place to call home."

It's a good thing you're asking for advice at all, but I think you need to be more receptive to what some people are telling you and ignore some of your own logical conclusions you seem certain are correct. For example, when you make the conclusion that midlaw exists as a large portion of legal employment because there's some salary gap between 60k and 160k, your ignorance as a 0L is readily apparent. There are several factors you've entirely failed to consider (regional biglaw doesn't pay 160k in secondary/tertiary cities, some are boutiques that require biglaw/patent credentials, insurance defense firms) that undermine your theory that midlaw is some large part of legal employment that actual lawyers and law students who have conducted a thorough job search have just been blind to. You'd be better served considering advice humbly rather than fighting back at every suggestion that contradicts with your limited knowledge.
Thanks - I somehow always appreciate what you add.

Like I've said, I'm mostly resistant because more people get midlaw than biglaw, but again I'd prefer to work for government, preferably federal but I'm okay with local, and midlaw is a third choicw, before big law. I'm more concerned about quality of life than $ - w/o getting into specifics, I already have a set income that is enough to pay for rent basically anywhere. And I'd rather work in a job I love for 50-60k than biglaw for big bucks - and I've got outside funding, so paying for loans isn't a major concern (though I might have some after graduation, it'll be low - well under 100k). I'm open to moving, but I'd prefer to work in New England in the Boston area or north of it.

And I don't mean to be an ass, but some advice is just about $ which isn't even a concern.

More people get midlaw than big law? What are you basing that on? How are you defining midlaw here?

Phoenix97 · Post by **Phoenix97** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 3:04 pm

Post removed...

Clemenceau · Post by **Clemenceau** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 3:09 pm

You don't need a 10-11 pt bump to get into a significantly better school. Not sure how you concluded that exactly.

You keep citing that stupid "average retake is only a 1.8 pt bump" quib as if its gospel. You say you're "just being realistic," but I disagree. I think you're being exceedingly unrealistic if you believe the average retaker is someone who goes on tls, asks for opinions, and actively seeks out more information about the lsat and law school (that's you).

The average lsat test taker scores a 152 probably because (s)he barely studied whatsoever. Their average retake is 1.8 points higher probably because it's their 2nd time seeing a logic game instead of their 1st (that's not you).

See my point?

Phoenix97 · Post by **Phoenix97** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 3:14 pm

Post removed...

Phoenix97 · Post by **Phoenix97** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 3:20 pm

Post removed...

pancakes3 · Post by **pancakes3** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 3:42 pm

Troianii wrote:
pancakes3 wrote:I don't understand why you're treating your improvement on the LSAT as a completely stochastic event. If you're taking practice tests, you'll know with a fair level of certainty of how much your score will improve by. I also don't understand why you're committed to a retake but remain adamant about applying this cycle. Even if you score a 170 in February, the benefits will be greatly diminished compared to what you could get from sitting out a year.

Sitting out a year sucks, you being non-trad and older sucks, the fact that you have "outside funding" does make it easier for you to say "fuck it, yolo, i'm going" but from a big-picture standpoint it is still absolutely worth your time to buckle down and study for the LSAT.
yeah, you're basically criticizing what I didn't say - but thanks for your thought.

I don't know how else one would construe this post:

Troianii wrote: I plan on retaking in February, but again, unless my change (with studying over December and January) is Donald Trump "huuuuuge", then I don't think I'm going to wait a year.

I'm just being realistic here. Most people who re-take study, and the average bump for people with a 158 is 1.9, with roughly 40% getting no boost at all or doing even worse. Obviously study harder, increase likelihood of significant success, but I've read elsewhere (different link than I've attached, which has the data indicating an average 1.9 boost) that only one in ten get a significant boost of 8+. :/ I'd need a boost of 5+ for a big enough boost for it to be worth it for me to wait, and the chances of that are slim. But I'll study, see what boost I can get, and if it isn't at least a 163, then I'll probably choose a school based on this cycle.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=c ... t%20retake (follow second link - for whatever reason a direct link didn't work)

Effingham · Post by **Effingham** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 3:46 pm

Is there a question in this thread?

foregetaboutdre · Post by **foregetaboutdre** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 3:57 pm

Going to against the grain assuming OP is getting ALL his tuition paid by GI Bill.... (I would recommend OP to retake, but his outcomes IMO won't be that bad if he decides not to and goes to ASU)

ASU is fine if you graduate with no debt. Just don't think you'll be working at a V5 firm coming out of ASU (you will almost be exclusively working in Arizona), but ASU's employment stats are respectable enough where you most likely will get some form of JD-required employment. With no debt, this should be manageable. Your URM status will help you if you ever try for "biglaw" or "midlaw" or whatever they have out there in AZ (no idea about AZ legal market). Many firms have some great diversity programs, so as much of a crapshoot grades are, try to get good ones 1L year. Also no idea if you belong to a tribe, but your tribe might also be able to help you out with career possibilities/internships.

Cast a big net when applying. Apply to some reach schools with national prestige, and also apply to schools that are regional powers (in individual states much like ASU is). BUT PLEASE MAKE SURE TO HAVE SOME TIES TO THE STATES THAT THE REGIONALS ARE IN.

BigZuck · Post by **BigZuck** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 4:04 pm

ASU (26) is really no better than Kentucky (63) and neither should be attended without, at a bare minimum, a strong desire and reason for wanting to live and work in that state exclusively.

Pulling states out of a hat and applying to their flagship law schools is an exceedingly bad plan IMO.

foregetaboutdre · Post by **foregetaboutdre** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 4:06 pm

BigZuck wrote:ASU (26) is really no better than Kentucky (63) and neither should be attended without, at a bare minimum, a strong desire and reason for wanting to live and work in that state exclusively.

Pulling states out of a hat and applying to their flagship law schools is an exceedingly bad plan IMO.

I just want to emphasize this post. If you're going to state flagship that is OK (with no debt), only if, you have ties there.

A. Nony Mouse · Post by **A. Nony Mouse** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 4:17 pm

pancakes3 wrote:- federal government is intensely competitive because there are fewer openings than biglaw but require biglaw credentials. from a non-T14, you'd probably have to be top 15-20% just to land an interview.

Just to be nitpicky - the feds often seem to care more about grades than school. You often don't get cut any slack on grades coming from a T14 versus a T-whatever; you need good grades at a top school, too (though often you need pertinent experience as much if not more so than good grades).

foregetaboutdre · Post by **foregetaboutdre** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 4:22 pm

A. Nony Mouse wrote:
pancakes3 wrote:- federal government is intensely competitive because there are fewer openings than biglaw but require biglaw credentials. from a non-T14, you'd probably have to be top 15-20% just to land an interview.
Just to be nitpicky - the feds often seem to care more about grades than school. You often don't get cut any slack on grades coming from a T14 versus a T-whatever; you need good grades at a top school, too (though often you need pertinent experience as much if not more so than good grades).

Also not familiar w/ BigFed legal hiring, but IME with Federal hiring the grades thing mentioned above is exactly correct. Also, status as a vet + URM make a big difference in qualified applicants. Also things like a commitment to public service and experience in that sector (no training necessary) also make a big difference.

Troianii · Post by **Troianii** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 6:05 pm

Clemenceau wrote:You don't need a 10-11 pt bump to get into a significantly better school. Not sure how you concluded that exactly.

You keep citing that stupid "average retake is only a 1.8 pt bump" quib as if its gospel. You say you're "just being realistic," but I disagree. I think you're being exceedingly unrealistic if you believe the average retaker is someone who goes on tls, asks for opinions, and actively seeks out more information about the lsat and law school (that's you).

The average lsat test taker scores a 152 probably because (s)he barely studied whatsoever. Their average retake is 1.8 points higher probably because it's their 2nd time seeing a logic game instead of their 1st (that's not you).

See my point?

To be clear, I'm saying that I'd need a 10-11pt bump to get into a better school that I would choose over BU or BC. I wouldn't choose to go to WUSTL or Alamaba over those two - the next one up I'd prefer to go to over BU/BC is Cornell, maybe Vanderbilt, because of a strong regional preference.

I don't think I ever said that the average retaker is "someone who goes on tls, asks for opinions..." etc. Most retakers actually do prep - and I know that if I really hunker down I can expect a sizable bump, easily 3+, but likely about 4 or 5. But getting a better improvement than the top 10% of retakers? I don't think that's realistic.

So, it looks like what's key here is how much of a bump I'd need. My thinking is that, with such a low gpa (which may go up a bit, but at best would be about a 3.0), I'd have to have a median LSAT at a school like Cornell, even with my softs. And that is not what I'd have to have to have a chance at getting in, that's what I think I'd have to have to reasonably expect to get in, and even that is somewhat pushing it. Like I think I said somewhere in this long thread, if I was certain that taking a year off meant that I'd get into Cornell or better, then I'd be all for it. But, at least so far as I can see, taking a year off and getting a huge bump - like 10pts - would only give me a fair shot at a place like Cornell,

http://mylsn.info/fkkh10/

Based on what I can gather from LSN, taking that year off and getting that 9-11pt boost wouldn't come even close to guaranteeing me at ANY T-14, it'd just give me a super-slim chance at the lower T14s, only one of which I'd actually prefer to go to over BU or BC.

Troianii · Post by **Troianii** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 6:09 pm

pancakes3 wrote: Even if you score a 170 in February, the benefits will be greatly diminished compared to what you could get from sitting out a year.

yeah, you're basically criticizing what I didn't say - but thanks for your thought.

Troianii wrote:I plan on retaking in February, but again, unless my change (with studying over December and January) is Donald Trump "huuuuuge", then I don't think I'm going to wait a year.

I don't know how that could be any more obvious. I said that I plan on retaking in February, and if my chance is significant, I'd take a year off. Then you basically came back saying I'm so stupid because if I got a better score I should take a year off.

Again, thanks for the advice anyways. You've come off as a complete ace, at least to me, but I realize that the intentions were right and that's really what matters, so thanks.

Troianii · Post by **Troianii** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 6:10 pm

foregetaboutdre wrote:Going to against the grain assuming OP is getting ALL his tuition paid by GI Bill.... (I would recommend OP to retake, but his outcomes IMO won't be that bad if he decides not to and goes to ASU)

ASU is fine if you graduate with no debt. Just don't think you'll be working at a V5 firm coming out of ASU (you will almost be exclusively working in Arizona), but ASU's employment stats are respectable enough where you most likely will get some form of JD-required employment. With no debt, this should be manageable. Your URM status will help you if you ever try for "biglaw" or "midlaw" or whatever they have out there in AZ (no idea about AZ legal market). Many firms have some great diversity programs, so as much of a crapshoot grades are, try to get good ones 1L year. Also no idea if you belong to a tribe, but your tribe might also be able to help you out with career possibilities/internships.

Cast a big net when applying. Apply to some reach schools with national prestige, and also apply to schools that are regional powers (in individual states much like ASU is). BUT PLEASE MAKE SURE TO HAVE SOME TIES TO THE STATES THAT THE REGIONALS ARE IN.

Thanks for this.

Troianii · Post by **Troianii** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 6:15 pm

Effingham wrote:Is there a question in this thread?

bwahahaha, yes, in the OP.

What are my chances at BU, BC, Emory, etc.

This thread took a wildly different turn than I was hoping, but advice is always appreciated, even if I question it.

Troianii · Post by **Troianii** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 6:19 pm

Phoenix97 wrote:
Troianii wrote:
Phoenix97 wrote:
Ken Kesey wrote:Honestly, what even makes you think you'll be successful at law school? You have terrible numbers. If you want to be a prosecutor or small time general practitioner then I can see going to law school, but really I would only go if you have some especially strong desire for law school.
Geez...why is there always that one guy who does this?

Person one: [Offers constructive criticism]

Person two: [Offers genuine advice]

That one guy: "Yeah, and you're a dumb piece of shit."

*crickets chirping*

*distant cough*

Not nice or necessary.

OP, I think you should pursue whatever dream or goal you've been striving for...but you may be better served by thinking a bit harder about your maximum potential and not rush forward simply because you think thirty is some mystical age when everything goes downhill and people are supposed to give up on developing themselves.
I'd need an 11pt jump. :/ there's always hope, but I think there's a point you need to put expectations in check, right?
I've made a 20/+ jump on my PTs in less than a year. As you have already acknowledged, this is a VERY learnable test as long as you're willing to work hard. I used the Powerscore Bibles, Manhattan Guides, gone over these forums over and over, and drilled to the point where I was so burnt out I was literally unable to process anything LSAT related. It can be done.

Wow, congrats! Yeah I know it can be done - I've heard of some incredible success stories - but there's also the bit about likelihood to be concerned with. I could go to a TTT, kick the crap out of that TTT, and get into biglaw - I mean, it could be done (and has been done), but it isn't reasonable to expect. It's no reason not to study and retake, but again I prefer to take the February LSAT and see how much progress I can make with 200-240hrs of studying before committing to taking a year off. If I can get such a bump from 200hrs of studying that I can reasonably expect to get to a net 10pt boost with more time, then I may well just do that. It's not laziness so much as concern that even with studying I won't get the kind of boost that I need. And, in any case, I might not get into BU/BC, and then would maybe be more likely to take a year off.

Clemenceau · Post by **Clemenceau** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 6:28 pm

Troianii wrote:
Clemenceau wrote:You don't need a 10-11 pt bump to get into a significantly better school. Not sure how you concluded that exactly.

You keep citing that stupid "average retake is only a 1.8 pt bump" quib as if its gospel. You say you're "just being realistic," but I disagree. I think you're being exceedingly unrealistic if you believe the average retaker is someone who goes on tls, asks for opinions, and actively seeks out more information about the lsat and law school (that's you).

The average lsat test taker scores a 152 probably because (s)he barely studied whatsoever. Their average retake is 1.8 points higher probably because it's their 2nd time seeing a logic game instead of their 1st (that's not you).

See my point?
To be clear, I'm saying that I'd need a 10-11pt bump to get into a better school that I would choose over BU or BC. I wouldn't choose to go to WUSTL or Alamaba over those two - the next one up I'd prefer to go to over BU/BC is Cornell, maybe Vanderbilt, because of a strong regional preference.

I don't think I ever said that the average retaker is "someone who goes on tls, asks for opinions..." etc. Most retakers actually do prep - and I know that if I really hunker down I can expect a sizable bump, easily 3+, but likely about 4 or 5. But getting a better improvement than the top 10% of retakers? I don't think that's realistic.

So, it looks like what's key here is how much of a bump I'd need. My thinking is that, with such a low gpa (which may go up a bit, but at best would be about a 3.0), I'd have to have a median LSAT at a school like Cornell, even with my softs. And that is not what I'd have to have to have a chance at getting in, that's what I think I'd have to have to reasonably expect to get in, and even that is somewhat pushing it. Like I think I said somewhere in this long thread, if I was certain that taking a year off meant that I'd get into Cornell or better, then I'd be all for it. But, at least so far as I can see, taking a year off and getting a huge bump - like 10pts - would only give me a fair shot at a place like Cornell,

http://mylsn.info/fkkh10/

Based on what I can gather from LSN, taking that year off and getting that 9-11pt boost wouldn't come even close to guaranteeing me at ANY T-14, it'd just give me a super-slim chance at the lower T14s, only one of which I'd actually prefer to go to over BU or BC.

Okay, I'm starting to understand your logic a bit more, although you appear to have doubled back on your "traditional wisdom doesn't apply to me" shtick, that's probably for the better.

If nothing else, don't settle for ASU without ties. It seems like you have some legitimate ties to the northeast, so hopefully your retake will get you into bc/bu. As long as your tuition is covered, then that seems like an ok choice.

But still do everything in your power to crush your retake. You might not need a 167 to snag cornell. Good luck.

pancakes3 · Post by **pancakes3** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 6:37 pm

Troianii wrote:
pancakes3 wrote: Even if you score a 170 in February, the benefits will be greatly diminished compared to what you could get from sitting out a year.

yeah, you're basically criticizing what I didn't say - but thanks for your thought.

Troianii wrote:I plan on retaking in February, but again, unless my change (with studying over December and January) is Donald Trump "huuuuuge", then I don't think I'm going to wait a year.
I don't know how that could be any more obvious. I said that I plan on retaking in February, and if my chance is significant, I'd take a year off. Then you basically came back saying I'm so stupid because if I got a better score I should take a year off.

Again, thanks for the advice anyways. You've come off as a complete ace, at least to me, but I realize that the intentions were right and that's really what matters, so thanks.

Yes, you're retaking in February but you acknowledge that you don't have time to properly study between now and December so you're banking on using half of December onwards to January to improve your score. What I'm saying is that your efforts at a retake is only nominal, and not in best efforts.

The point of a retake isn't just so you can retort back to TLS that yes - technically you're retaking. The point of a retake is to prepare as hard as you honestly can so you can get as high a score as possible. In order for that to happen, you need time set aside to study and prepare. That would mean a June, or preferably an October retake. What I meant by "even if you score a 170 in February) is that even if you do manage an incredible jump in February, think how high a score you can get by June or October? 175?

But hey, you're going to do what you're going to do. Don't let the very real outcome that thousands of others who decided to rush into law school with unrealistic expectations and ended up doing doc review or just flat out unemployed stop you from your masterplan to cop Boston BigFed coming out of ASU.

Troianii · Post by **Troianii** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 7:09 pm

pancakes3 wrote:
Troianii wrote:
pancakes3 wrote: Even if you score a 170 in February, the benefits will be greatly diminished compared to what you could get from sitting out a year.

yeah, you're basically criticizing what I didn't say - but thanks for your thought.

Troianii wrote:I plan on retaking in February, but again, unless my change (with studying over December and January) is Donald Trump "huuuuuge", then I don't think I'm going to wait a year.
I don't know how that could be any more obvious. I said that I plan on retaking in February, and if my chance is significant, I'd take a year off. Then you basically came back saying I'm so stupid because if I got a better score I should take a year off.

Again, thanks for the advice anyways. You've come off as a complete ace, at least to me, but I realize that the intentions were right and that's really what matters, so thanks.
Yes, you're retaking in February but you acknowledge that you don't have time to properly study between now and December so you're banking on using half of December onwards to January to improve your score. What I'm saying is that your efforts at a retake is only nominal, and not in best efforts.

The point of a retake isn't just so you can retort back to TLS that yes - technically you're retaking. The point of a retake is to prepare as hard as you honestly can so you can get as high a score as possible. In order for that to happen, you need time set aside to study and prepare. That would mean a June, or preferably an October retake. What I meant by "even if you score a 170 in February) is that even if you do manage an incredible jump in February, think how high a score you can get by June or October? 175?

But hey, you're going to do what you're going to do. Don't let the very real outcome that thousands of others who decided to rush into law school with unrealistic expectations and ended up doing doc review or just flat out unemployed stop you from your masterplan to cop Boston BigFed coming out of ASU.

1. good critique, except not of what I've said, 2. good critique, except not of what I've said, 3. good critique, except not of what I've said.

Thanks again. Your advice is much appreciated.

Troianii · Post by **Troianii** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 7:12 pm

Clemenceau wrote:
Troianii wrote:
Clemenceau wrote:You don't need a 10-11 pt bump to get into a significantly better school. Not sure how you concluded that exactly.

You keep citing that stupid "average retake is only a 1.8 pt bump" quib as if its gospel. You say you're "just being realistic," but I disagree. I think you're being exceedingly unrealistic if you believe the average retaker is someone who goes on tls, asks for opinions, and actively seeks out more information about the lsat and law school (that's you).

The average lsat test taker scores a 152 probably because (s)he barely studied whatsoever. Their average retake is 1.8 points higher probably because it's their 2nd time seeing a logic game instead of their 1st (that's not you).

See my point?
To be clear, I'm saying that I'd need a 10-11pt bump to get into a better school that I would choose over BU or BC. I wouldn't choose to go to WUSTL or Alamaba over those two - the next one up I'd prefer to go to over BU/BC is Cornell, maybe Vanderbilt, because of a strong regional preference.

I don't think I ever said that the average retaker is "someone who goes on tls, asks for opinions..." etc. Most retakers actually do prep - and I know that if I really hunker down I can expect a sizable bump, easily 3+, but likely about 4 or 5. But getting a better improvement than the top 10% of retakers? I don't think that's realistic.

So, it looks like what's key here is how much of a bump I'd need. My thinking is that, with such a low gpa (which may go up a bit, but at best would be about a 3.0), I'd have to have a median LSAT at a school like Cornell, even with my softs. And that is not what I'd have to have to have a chance at getting in, that's what I think I'd have to have to reasonably expect to get in, and even that is somewhat pushing it. Like I think I said somewhere in this long thread, if I was certain that taking a year off meant that I'd get into Cornell or better, then I'd be all for it. But, at least so far as I can see, taking a year off and getting a huge bump - like 10pts - would only give me a fair shot at a place like Cornell,

http://mylsn.info/fkkh10/

Based on what I can gather from LSN, taking that year off and getting that 9-11pt boost wouldn't come even close to guaranteeing me at ANY T-14, it'd just give me a super-slim chance at the lower T14s, only one of which I'd actually prefer to go to over BU or BC.
Okay, I'm starting to understand your logic a bit more, although you appear to have doubled back on your "traditional wisdom doesn't apply to me" shtick, that's probably for the better.

If nothing else, don't settle for ASU without ties. It seems like you have some legitimate ties to the northeast, so hopefully your retake will get you into bc/bu. As long as your tuition is covered, then that seems like an ok choice.

But still do everything in your power to crush your retake. You might not need a 167 to snag cornell. Good luck.

Yeah, sorry if I didn't explain it as well as I should have prior. What I was hoping for was more a gauge of whether such an acceptance to ASU should help gauge if I might potentially get accepted at similarly ranked schools with similar admissions figures, or if I should (based on statistical chances alone) take it as my having gotten lucky with ASU, and expect to get rejection letters from BC, BU, etc.

pancakes3 · Post by **pancakes3** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 7:20 pm

Troianii wrote:
pancakes3 wrote:
Troianii wrote:
pancakes3 wrote: Even if you score a 170 in February, the benefits will be greatly diminished compared to what you could get from sitting out a year.

yeah, you're basically criticizing what I didn't say - but thanks for your thought.

Troianii wrote:I plan on retaking in February, but again, unless my change (with studying over December and January) is Donald Trump "huuuuuge", then I don't think I'm going to wait a year.
I don't know how that could be any more obvious. I said that I plan on retaking in February, and if my chance is significant, I'd take a year off. Then you basically came back saying I'm so stupid because if I got a better score I should take a year off.

Again, thanks for the advice anyways. You've come off as a complete ace, at least to me, but I realize that the intentions were right and that's really what matters, so thanks.
Yes, you're retaking in February but you acknowledge that you don't have time to properly study between now and December so you're banking on using half of December onwards to January to improve your score. What I'm saying is that your efforts at a retake is only nominal, and not in best efforts.

The point of a retake isn't just so you can retort back to TLS that yes - technically you're retaking. The point of a retake is to prepare as hard as you honestly can so you can get as high a score as possible. In order for that to happen, you need time set aside to study and prepare. That would mean a June, or preferably an October retake. What I meant by "even if you score a 170 in February) is that even if you do manage an incredible jump in February, think how high a score you can get by June or October? 175?

But hey, you're going to do what you're going to do. Don't let the very real outcome that thousands of others who decided to rush into law school with unrealistic expectations and ended up doing doc review or just flat out unemployed stop you from your masterplan to cop Boston BigFed coming out of ASU.
1. good critique, except not of what I've said, 2. good critique, except not of what I've said, 3. good critique, except not of what I've said.

[img]bender[/img]

Thanks again. Your advice is much appreciated.

can't wait to hear how your cycle goes