Top Law Schools

Greeting!

I'm an asian international student graduated one year from a top 20 university. GPA 3.66 & LSAT 158 Dec. (Sep. Cancelled) and weak soft.

I consistently scored 164-168 in most of my PTs and was aim for that range in the December test. I was gonna try Berkeley, Cornell, Georgetown, UCLA, USC, Boston U, etc. if I scored within that range.

Since I fell completely out of range for the schools that I am willing to attend, should I just sit out and retake in June? (Already registered)
My biggest concern is whether I can improve my score given that I have exhausted all the PTs for one time, and whether I can even perform as good as what I do in the PTs in the test day.
Also I hate to waste another year of my life. I need to go back to my country because my visa program terminates and probably start a short term job for the meantime.

Or should I apply some schools that I am not so willing to attend: Hasting, Miami, Loyola LA, Pepperdine.
My goal is to go to big law, and if I attend these schools my chance at transfer is probably also dim?

And this there any point for me to still apply to some schools I originally had in mind, knowing that it's almost impossible. (PS and DS nearly finished)


Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

TCR from TLS will be to retake for ur goals

Read this guide, and retake: http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 6&t=195603

Also international and decided to sit out a year after scoring 7 points below my PT-average, and fairly happy with my decision so far. My choice of schools and my scholarship options are much better and I don't have to worry too much about having to gun for the top 1% in 1L for a transfer. This is especially true since you're trying to get into BigLaw - the difference between Cornell and Hastings in terms of BigLaw employment is YUUUUUUGE

If Biglaw is your goal, I'd definitely say sitting out and retaking is your best bet. A lot of your competition for biglaw positions is gonna be people that went to top law schools, which place significantly better for biglaw. You'll be at a disadvantage by attending a T2. Based on what I've read, transferring law schools is a massive pain in the ass and requires that you're in THE TIPPY TOP of your class, which just sounds like more stress than it needs to be.

Thank you for all the replies so far. They are really helpful.

Another question, should I submit my applications for some T20 schools anyway this year and wish for miracle, or I shouldn't apply to any T20 schools given my chance is low?

If I apply this year and got rejections, would they somehow hurt my next year's chance if I have roughly the same PS & DS?

I was in your position last cycle and DID end up applying with a similar GPA and a low 160s LSAT. I applied to multiple T20s (among them a few that you plan on applying to) with my stats and was rejected from all of them.

Ended up retaking the LSAT and reapplying this cycle. Of the schools I reapplied to, so far I'm in at a couple. So no, I don't think it hurts your chances at all to reapply to the same schools so long as you have an improved LSAT score and a revamped PS & DS. Definitely work on a new PS though.

daiff wrote:Greeting!

I'm an asian international student graduated one year from a top 20 university. GPA 3.66 & LSAT 158 Dec. (Sep. Cancelled) and weak soft.

I consistently scored 164-168 in most of my PTs and was aim for that range in the December test. I was gonna try Berkeley, Cornell, Georgetown, UCLA, USC, Boston U, etc. if I scored within that range.

Since I fell completely out of range for the schools that I am willing to attend, should I just sit out and retake in June? (Already registered)
My biggest concern is whether I can improve my score given that I have exhausted all the PTs for one time, and whether I can even perform as good as what I do in the PTs in the test day.
Also I hate to waste another year of my life. I need to go back to my country because my visa program terminates and probably start a short term job for the meantime.

Or should I apply some schools that I am not so willing to attend: Hasting, Miami, Loyola LA, Pepperdine.
My goal is to go to big law, and if I attend these schools my chance at transfer is probably also dim?

And this there any point for me to still apply to some schools I originally had in mind, knowing that it's almost impossible. (PS and DS nearly finished)


Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

I also didn't meet my LSAT goals last year. However, I decided to apply anyway saying "why not see what I can get??" and ultimately decided to sit out a year rather than put myself in a disadvantage. So far, best decision I've made. Here's why.

1. You're applying super late. January applications are okay if you have strong numbers. Since yours are below the medians (and 25ths) for all of the T14s/T20s you listed, you're going to be going in with a severe disadvantage. I applied with medians in January and got instarejected/waitlisted everywhere.

However, I worked all summer long making my application better, rewriting essays, getting different LORs, and applied early in the cycle this year. So far, I've gotten into MANY schools that waitlisted me last cycle and I got SIGNIFICANTLY more money from schools that I was accepted to last year.

Don't put yourself at the risk of paying $$$$$$$ just because you feel like you must absolutely have to go to law school this fall. Sometimes, waiting and applying when you're ready will go a long way


2. If you get your LSAT up, you'll open many more doors and get so much more $$. Focus on that for now. Get that 170 and go to the school you actually want to attend.


3. Don't go to law school planning to transfer. Yes, it's okay to not go to your DREAM school and try to transfer. But go to a school that you're happy to graduate from if these things don't all go to plan. If you attended one of the schools you listed and bombed a final, your entire plans go out the window!

If sitting out another year is going to make you miserable/ doesn't fit with your circumstances, apply and see what happens, if you're not happy with your outcomes you can always not go and take their advice anyway. I have slightly worse numbers and I'm doing this(I also have a soft URM boost). You should be proud of your 158 LSAT score, that is better than 3/4's of LSAT test takers and the fact you have a pretty good GPA makes that a little less important than it would be for someone with a GPA in the low 2's. Where do you want to practice? You have no chance at the T-14 with your numbers as they are right now but you could get into really T1's with money and T2's with serious money maybe even a full ride. Seeing that you seem interested in Florida and California, schools that are not off the table for you(and are better than the ones you said you are "not so willing to attend") are USC, UCI, UCD, Florida and FSU. These are all T1 schools in those same regions that your numbers could probably get you admitted to(USC would be a tight one). Always remember that TLS tends to be biased towards retakes and that while retaking the LSAT three times to get the maximum score is smart if not necessary, the echo chamber of 170+ scores makes them believe that getting that sort of score(and getting 10+ point jumps) is far more easy than it is in reality and makes it skipping a cycle worth it. I've seen threads where they tell people with scores in the upper 160's and decent GPA's to retake, they've taken what is typically good advice and went overboard with it! Of course if you're dead set on Big Law, you probably should retake.

.

chargers21 wrote:

Ferrisjso wrote:If sitting out another year is going to make you miserable/ doesn't fit with your circumstances, apply and see what happens, if you're not happy with your outcomes you can always not go and take their advice anyway. I have slightly worse numbers and I'm doing this(I also have a soft URM boost). You should be proud of your 158 LSAT score, that is better than 3/4's of LSAT test takers and the fact you have a pretty good GPA makes that a little less important than it would be for someone with a GPA in the low 2's. Where do you want to practice? You have no chance at the T-14 with your numbers as they are right now but you could get into really T1's with money and T2's with serious money maybe even a full ride. Seeing that you seem interested in Florida and California, schools that are not off the table for you(and are better than the ones you said you are "not so willing to attend") are USC, UCI, UCD, Florida and FSU. These are all T1 schools in those same regions that your numbers could probably get you admitted to(USC would be a tight one). Always remember that TLS tends to be biased towards retakes and that while retaking the LSAT three times to get the maximum score is smart if not necessary, the echo chamber of 170+ scores makes them believe that getting that sort of score(and getting 10+ point jumps) is far more easy than it is in reality and makes it skipping a cycle worth it. I've seen threads where they tell people with scores in the upper 160's and decent GPA's to retake, they've taken what is typically good advice and went overboard with it! Of course if you're dead set on Big Law, you probably should retake.

He has demonstrated the ability to score higher and has stated plans of going into big law, so retake is definitely the best option if that is really the goal and the PTs were timed

I think most people do better on PT's than in real life. As hard as we try to make it so,a PT can't (for most I think) simulate the anxiety's and pressure's of the test itself. Of course you're right if he is deadset on Big Law, he should wait a cycle and retake, if taking a year off is a burden though, he has the numbers to do better than the schools he listed like Hastings and Miami and no one else was telling him that.

Ferrisjso wrote:I think most people do better on PT's than in real life. As hard as we try to make it so,a PT can't (for most I think) simulate the anxiety's and pressure's of the test itself. Of course you're right if he is deadset on Big Law, he should wait a cycle and retake, if taking a year off is a burden though, he has the numbers to do better than the schools he listed like Hastings and Miami and no one else was telling him that.

A 0L here, so take my words with a grain of salt. But I feel like 2~3 points below PT (so 161~166) is reasonable. 158 score with 164-168 PT scores means there's a plenty of room to improve, I feel like.

158/3.66 gets you this: http://mylsn.info/c9pygw/
161/3.66 gets you this: http://mylsn.info/wzph7u/

If you're aiming for a biglaw, I feel like BC has to be the "last last choice" (Any school below BC doesn't give you too good of a biglaw number), and 161 will gets you there. 158, not so much.

uion1715 wrote:

Ferrisjso wrote:I think most people do better on PT's than in real life. As hard as we try to make it so,a PT can't (for most I think) simulate the anxiety's and pressure's of the test itself. Of course you're right if he is deadset on Big Law, he should wait a cycle and retake, if taking a year off is a burden though, he has the numbers to do better than the schools he listed like Hastings and Miami and no one else was telling him that.

A 0L here, so take my words with a grain of salt. But I feel like 2~3 points below PT (so 161~166) is reasonable. 158 score with 164-168 PT scores means there's a plenty of room to improve, I feel like.

158/3.66 gets you this: http://mylsn.info/c9pygw/
161/3.66 gets you this: http://mylsn.info/wzph7u/

If you're aiming for a biglaw, I feel like BC has to be the "last last choice" (Any school below BC doesn't give you too good of a biglaw number), and 161 will gets you there. 158, not so much.

I'm a OL also. I see your point and I agree with your logic. I just think that due to so many of the people who've experienced the huge gains (like 10+points) being on here, a misleading picture is created about how likely that actually is. I think everyone should use their 3 LSAT retakes, my big concern is telling people to put off law school a year for a considerable increase they don't have a good chance of getting. I think the 2-3 below PT's is a fair number, although I'd go a little lower depending on the testing environment.

Ferrisjso wrote: I'm a OL also. I see your point and I agree with your logic. I just think that due to so many of the people who've experienced the huge gains (like 10+points) being on here, a misleading picture is created about how likely that actually is. I think everyone should use their 3 LSAT retakes, my big concern is telling people to put off law school a year for a considerable increase they don't have a good chance of getting. I think the 2-3 below PT's is a fair number, although I'd go a little lower depending on the testing environment.

Oh good, another 0L telling everyone exactly how hard it is to see an increase of a few points on a standardized test instead of coming in at the top of your class at a shit school.

My big concern here is people who have not actually gone to law school telling others that they should rush the decision to take out six figures of loans in order to avoid having to spend a year (a whole year!) putting themselves in a decent position for getting into a good program and having the job they want after graduation.

Ferrisjso wrote:If sitting out another year is going to make you miserable/ doesn't fit with your circumstances, apply and see what happens, if you're not happy with your outcomes you can always not go and take their advice anyway. I have slightly worse numbers and I'm doing this(I also have a soft URM boost). You should be proud of your 158 LSAT score, that is better than 3/4's of LSAT test takers and the fact you have a pretty good GPA makes that a little less important than it would be for someone with a GPA in the low 2's. Where do you want to practice? You have no chance at the T-14 with your numbers as they are right now but you could get into really T1's with money and T2's with serious money maybe even a full ride. Seeing that you seem interested in Florida and California, schools that are not off the table for you(and are better than the ones you said you are "not so willing to attend") are USC, UCI, UCD, Florida and FSU. These are all T1 schools in those same regions that your numbers could probably get you admitted to(USC would be a tight one). Always remember that TLS tends to be biased towards retakes and that while retaking the LSAT three times to get the maximum score is smart if not necessary, the echo chamber of 170+ scores makes them believe that getting that sort of score(and getting 10+ point jumps) is far more easy than it is in reality and makes it skipping a cycle worth it. I've seen threads where they tell people with scores in the upper 160's and decent GPA's to retake, they've taken what is typically good advice and went overboard with it! Of course if you're dead set on Big Law, you probably should retake.

Thank you Ferrisjso, for the advice from the other perspective. I'm trying to finishing up my essays and throwing in my app for some schools to see what might happen.

chargers21 wrote:

Ferrisjso wrote:If sitting out another year is going to make you miserable/ doesn't fit with your circumstances, apply and see what happens, if you're not happy with your outcomes you can always not go and take their advice anyway. I have slightly worse numbers and I'm doing this(I also have a soft URM boost). You should be proud of your 158 LSAT score, that is better than 3/4's of LSAT test takers and the fact you have a pretty good GPA makes that a little less important than it would be for someone with a GPA in the low 2's. Where do you want to practice? You have no chance at the T-14 with your numbers as they are right now but you could get into really T1's with money and T2's with serious money maybe even a full ride. Seeing that you seem interested in Florida and California, schools that are not off the table for you(and are better than the ones you said you are "not so willing to attend") are USC, UCI, UCD, Florida and FSU. These are all T1 schools in those same regions that your numbers could probably get you admitted to(USC would be a tight one). Always remember that TLS tends to be biased towards retakes and that while retaking the LSAT three times to get the maximum score is smart if not necessary, the echo chamber of 170+ scores makes them believe that getting that sort of score(and getting 10+ point jumps) is far more easy than it is in reality and makes it skipping a cycle worth it. I've seen threads where they tell people with scores in the upper 160's and decent GPA's to retake, they've taken what is typically good advice and went overboard with it! Of course if you're dead set on Big Law, you probably should retake.

He has demonstrated the ability to score higher and has stated plans of going into big law, so retake is definitely the best option if that is really the goal and the PTs were timed

Thank you chargers21. I believe I have the ability to score higher in timed PTs, but my worry is whether I can perform nearly as what I am capable of in the real test, given I have only one last shot. (I guess that I question only I would find out...

Ferrisjso wrote:

chargers21 wrote:

Ferrisjso wrote:If sitting out another year is going to make you miserable/ doesn't fit with your circumstances, apply and see what happens, if you're not happy with your outcomes you can always not go and take their advice anyway. I have slightly worse numbers and I'm doing this(I also have a soft URM boost). You should be proud of your 158 LSAT score, that is better than 3/4's of LSAT test takers and the fact you have a pretty good GPA makes that a little less important than it would be for someone with a GPA in the low 2's. Where do you want to practice? You have no chance at the T-14 with your numbers as they are right now but you could get into really T1's with money and T2's with serious money maybe even a full ride. Seeing that you seem interested in Florida and California, schools that are not off the table for you(and are better than the ones you said you are "not so willing to attend") are USC, UCI, UCD, Florida and FSU. These are all T1 schools in those same regions that your numbers could probably get you admitted to(USC would be a tight one). Always remember that TLS tends to be biased towards retakes and that while retaking the LSAT three times to get the maximum score is smart if not necessary, the echo chamber of 170+ scores makes them believe that getting that sort of score(and getting 10+ point jumps) is far more easy than it is in reality and makes it skipping a cycle worth it. I've seen threads where they tell people with scores in the upper 160's and decent GPA's to retake, they've taken what is typically good advice and went overboard with it! Of course if you're dead set on Big Law, you probably should retake.

He has demonstrated the ability to score higher and has stated plans of going into big law, so retake is definitely the best option if that is really the goal and the PTs were timed

I think most people do better on PT's than in real life. As hard as we try to make it so,a PT can't (for most I think) simulate the anxiety's and pressure's of the test itself. Of course you're right if he is deadset on Big Law, he should wait a cycle and retake, if taking a year off is a burden though, he has the numbers to do better than the schools he listed like Hastings and Miami and no one else was telling him that.

For the schools you've mentioned above, I don't know much about USC. But UCI, which I'm interested because of the location, has a particularly small class size like 100+ less than 200. And I think the chance for international student is lower. I don't know about other schools but I know UCLA only take 1-3 Chinese international yearly for the past few years.

Ferrisjso wrote:

chargers21 wrote:

Ferrisjso wrote:If sitting out another year is going to make you miserable/ doesn't fit with your circumstances, apply and see what happens, if you're not happy with your outcomes you can always not go and take their advice anyway. I have slightly worse numbers and I'm doing this(I also have a soft URM boost). You should be proud of your 158 LSAT score, that is better than 3/4's of LSAT test takers and the fact you have a pretty good GPA makes that a little less important than it would be for someone with a GPA in the low 2's. Where do you want to practice? You have no chance at the T-14 with your numbers as they are right now but you could get into really T1's with money and T2's with serious money maybe even a full ride. Seeing that you seem interested in Florida and California, schools that are not off the table for you(and are better than the ones you said you are "not so willing to attend") are USC, UCI, UCD, Florida and FSU. These are all T1 schools in those same regions that your numbers could probably get you admitted to(USC would be a tight one). Always remember that TLS tends to be biased towards retakes and that while retaking the LSAT three times to get the maximum score is smart if not necessary, the echo chamber of 170+ scores makes them believe that getting that sort of score(and getting 10+ point jumps) is far more easy than it is in reality and makes it skipping a cycle worth it. I've seen threads where they tell people with scores in the upper 160's and decent GPA's to retake, they've taken what is typically good advice and went overboard with it! Of course if you're dead set on Big Law, you probably should retake.

He has demonstrated the ability to score higher and has stated plans of going into big law, so retake is definitely the best option if that is really the goal and the PTs were timed

I think most people do better on PT's than in real life. As hard as we try to make it so,a PT can't (for most I think) simulate the anxiety's and pressure's of the test itself. Of course you're right if he is deadset on Big Law, he should wait a cycle and retake, if taking a year off is a burden though, he has the numbers to do better than the schools he listed like Hastings and Miami and no one else was telling him that.

For the schools you've mentioned above, I don't know much about USC. But UCI, which I'm interested because of the location, has a particularly small class size like 100+ less than 200. And I think the chance for international student is lower. I don't know about other schools but I know UCLA only take 1-3 Chinese international yearly for the past few years.

daiff wrote:

Ferrisjso wrote:

chargers21 wrote:

Ferrisjso wrote:If sitting out another year is going to make you miserable/ doesn't fit with your circumstances, apply and see what happens, if you're not happy with your outcomes you can always not go and take their advice anyway. I have slightly worse numbers and I'm doing this(I also have a soft URM boost). You should be proud of your 158 LSAT score, that is better than 3/4's of LSAT test takers and the fact you have a pretty good GPA makes that a little less important than it would be for someone with a GPA in the low 2's. Where do you want to practice? You have no chance at the T-14 with your numbers as they are right now but you could get into really T1's with money and T2's with serious money maybe even a full ride. Seeing that you seem interested in Florida and California, schools that are not off the table for you(and are better than the ones you said you are "not so willing to attend") are USC, UCI, UCD, Florida and FSU. These are all T1 schools in those same regions that your numbers could probably get you admitted to(USC would be a tight one). Always remember that TLS tends to be biased towards retakes and that while retaking the LSAT three times to get the maximum score is smart if not necessary, the echo chamber of 170+ scores makes them believe that getting that sort of score(and getting 10+ point jumps) is far more easy than it is in reality and makes it skipping a cycle worth it. I've seen threads where they tell people with scores in the upper 160's and decent GPA's to retake, they've taken what is typically good advice and went overboard with it! Of course if you're dead set on Big Law, you probably should retake.

He has demonstrated the ability to score higher and has stated plans of going into big law, so retake is definitely the best option if that is really the goal and the PTs were timed

I think most people do better on PT's than in real life. As hard as we try to make it so,a PT can't (for most I think) simulate the anxiety's and pressure's of the test itself. Of course you're right if he is deadset on Big Law, he should wait a cycle and retake, if taking a year off is a burden though, he has the numbers to do better than the schools he listed like Hastings and Miami and no one else was telling him that.

For the schools you've mentioned above, I don't know much about USC. But UCI, which I'm interested because of the location, has a particularly small class size like 100+ less than 200. And I think the chance for international student is lower. I don't know about other schools but I know UCLA only take 1-3 Chinese international yearly for the past few years.

If you want big law, you need to retake, it is that simple. You're not getting into USC and it is not a great school for big law to begin with and neither are any of the other schools mentioned. Keep practicing and retake in June

cavalier1138 wrote:

Ferrisjso wrote: I'm a OL also. I see your point and I agree with your logic. I just think that due to so many of the people who've experienced the huge gains (like 10+points) being on here, a misleading picture is created about how likely that actually is. I think everyone should use their 3 LSAT retakes, my big concern is telling people to put off law school a year for a considerable increase they don't have a good chance of getting. I think the 2-3 below PT's is a fair number, although I'd go a little lower depending on the testing environment.

Oh good, another 0L telling everyone exactly how hard it is to see an increase of a few points on a standardized test instead of coming in at the top of your class at a shit school.

My big concern here is people who have not actually gone to law school telling others that they should rush the decision to take out six figures of loans in order to avoid having to spend a year (a whole year!) putting themselves in a decent position for getting into a good program and having the job they want after graduation.

I wasn't talking about OP's chances at being at the top of his/her class(I brought that up in my chances thread, because I feel in MY situation, that I like my chances of being near the top better than a drastic LSAT improvement, because I felt at a disadvantage with the LSAT, this is a case by case thing). I was only talking about how people on here inflate the likelihood of drastic LSAT score increases. It's all good and fine to maximize your tries but why would people put off their career "a whole year!" for the chance of drastic LSAT improvement(especially when if someone already retook the test twice and didn't experience such increases) which is far from a guarantee. This doesn't stop many on here however, including you from advising people with scores as high as the mid 160's(objectively awesome scores) to put off law school a year for the slim chance of a score increase. The people who get these drastic score increases are obviously going to be disproportionately represented on forums such as this because for them that was a great idea and they want to shout it from the roof tops, that doesn't mean it's a great idea for most people(it has the potential to be though).

Ferrisjso wrote:

cavalier1138 wrote:

Ferrisjso wrote: I'm a OL also. I see your point and I agree with your logic. I just think that due to so many of the people who've experienced the huge gains (like 10+points) being on here, a misleading picture is created about how likely that actually is. I think everyone should use their 3 LSAT retakes, my big concern is telling people to put off law school a year for a considerable increase they don't have a good chance of getting. I think the 2-3 below PT's is a fair number, although I'd go a little lower depending on the testing environment.

Oh good, another 0L telling everyone exactly how hard it is to see an increase of a few points on a standardized test instead of coming in at the top of your class at a shit school.

My big concern here is people who have not actually gone to law school telling others that they should rush the decision to take out six figures of loans in order to avoid having to spend a year (a whole year!) putting themselves in a decent position for getting into a good program and having the job they want after graduation.

I wasn't talking about OP's chances at being at the top of his/her class(I brought that up in my chances thread, because I feel in MY situation, that I like my chances of being near the top better than a drastic LSAT improvement, because I felt at a disadvantage with the LSAT, this is a case by case thing). I was only talking about how people on here inflate the likelihood of drastic LSAT score increases. It's all good and fine to maximize your tries but why would people put off their career "a whole year!" for the chance of drastic LSAT improvement(especially when if someone already retook the test twice and didn't experience such increases) which is far from a guarantee. This doesn't stop many on here however, including you from advising people with scores as high as the mid 160's(objectively awesome scores) to put off law school a year for the slim chance of a score increase. The people who get these drastic score increases are obviously going to be disproportionately represented on forums such as this because for them that was a great idea and they want to shout it from the roof tops, that doesn't mean it's a great idea for most people(it has the potential to be though).

Except you are talking about their chances at being at the top of their class, because the OP specifically wants biglaw. If you're not talking about their chances at being at the top of their class at a T2 school, then you should be advising them against going to law school at all, given that their ambitions do not match their numbers.