Top Law Schools

Deleted

Skye94 wrote:Hi all,

What are my changes at T-14 and should I even apply to the 1-6 schools? I applied to the 7-14 so far but not 1-6 just in case I want to reapply next year. I know I should retake the LSAT but its easier said than done to actually improve my score. I appreciate your feedback.

LSAT: 165
- GPA: 4.00
- Ivy League undergrad
- Economics Major
- 1 rec should be outstanding, the other should just be decent
- Decent EC's
- non URM, female, low socioeconomic/first-gen

Looks like you already know what to do. Put in the work, reap your rewards.

Skye94 wrote:Hi all,

What are my changes at T-14 and should I even apply to the 1-6 schools? I applied to the 7-14 so far but not 1-6 just in case I want to reapply next year. I know I should retake the LSAT but its easier said than done to actually improve my score. I appreciate your feedback.

LSAT: 165
- GPA: 4.00
- Ivy League undergrad, Honors
- Major in Philosophy
- 1 rec should be outstanding, the other should just be decent
- Decent EC's
- non URM, female, low socioeconomic/first-gen

Imho you should sit out this cycle and retake in June or September, if not you'd be doing a huge disservice to yourself. With a 172+ (which you are fully capable of scoring), you're looking at HYS/money at 7-14 schools.

oh my god retake

Also, are you an econ or phil major? If the latter, presumably unemployable. So retake. If the former with a 4.0 from an ivy, I can't really see how law school is a good life choice? (See this entire forum.)

You are in a wonderful position. Can't believe there are people telling a 4.0 with a 165 to retake, smfh. You're going to have some great choices!

.

.

Ferrisjso wrote:You are in a wonderful position. Can't believe there are people telling a 4.0 with a 165 to retake, smfh. You're going to have some great choices!

What is your argument for the OP not retaking?

OP: If you want sticker at 8-14 or a good shot at T6, retake. If you are okay with $$$ at a strong regional school or debt at a T14, don't retake.

You may have already considered this and decided against it, but fwiw if I was in your position I wouldn't retake, apply, or do anything else with law school. I'd take my 4.0 in economics from an ivy and go profit at Goldman or McKinsey.

youngwarrior wrote:

Skye94 wrote:Hi all,

What are my changes at T-14 and should I even apply to the 1-6 schools? I applied to the 7-14 so far but not 1-6 just in case I want to reapply next year. I know I should retake the LSAT but its easier said than done to actually improve my score. I appreciate your feedback.

LSAT: 165
- GPA: 4.00
- Ivy League undergrad, Honors
- Major in Philosophy
- 1 rec should be outstanding, the other should just be decent
- Decent EC's
- non URM, female, low socioeconomic/first-gen

Imho you should sit out this cycle and retake in June or September, if not you'd be doing a huge disservice to yourself. With a 172+ (which you are fully capable of scoring), you're looking at HYS/money at 7-14 schools.

By no means am I arguing, but just wondering what makes you say "which you are fully capable of scoring" without knowing anything of their LSAT prep? Maybe I missed something, in which case I accept full stupidity and am happy to learn. Just wondering how you make such a claim based on no other information about studying for their first LSAT. Jumping from a 165 to 172 is pretty big - not impossible but by no means easy.

BigZuck wrote:

Ferrisjso wrote:You are in a wonderful position. Can't believe there are people telling a 4.0 with a 165 to retake, smfh. You're going to have some great choices!

What is your argument for the OP not retaking?

OP's GPA is above the 75th of every school in the country. A 4.0 makes up for some of the splitters these schools want to admit. Her LSAT should get her into everything but the T6 with money( and could probably get accepted to at least one of Chicago, Columbia or NYU with little to no money if dead set on it, if shed applied). She didn't apply to the T6 anyway. A 90th percentile plus LSAT score isn't worth waiting a cycle(I'm of the philosophy that taking a year off between undergrad and graduate studies is a terrible idea unless you have a specific reason to do so) to retake unless you need to compensate for the GPA, which is not the case here. The LSAT simply isn't weak enough to keep OP out of almost any school and the opens the door at every single one. If the OP had time to retake without delaying a cycle, I'd say go for it why not, but there's no guarantee that the score will improve(and the OP is skeptical it will)and taking a year off on the chance the score will go up doesn't seem to be worth it. OP has applied to 7 of the T14, will probably be admitted to almost all or all of them and receive various amounts of money from them(look at the 509's) There really is no reason for OP to retake unless they are dead set on one of the 6 schools in the T14 they didn't apply to and are willing to wait a year for a chance(not a guarantee) to be admitted to one. Don't like the retake consensus guilt you into thinking you're making the wrong decision, you're not. If you're happy with one of your options do it, if not wait a year and reapply and/or retake. You're in a great position and don't let the disproportionate amount of people with higher LSAT scores on here fool you into thinking otherwise. You did better than over 90% of LSAT test takers and have a higher GPA that every single person on this thread would do virtually anything for. The fact that people would advise retake on an applicant like this, really weakens the credibility of their arguments. If this applicant should retake that means that every sub 165 LSAT should retake(because they will inherently have an equal or lesser GPA), not to mention people with higher LSAT's and lower GPA's. I understand the market is saturated but in a hypothetical world where students were forced to retake or not go to law school if they were in a situation equal or worse than this over 95% of LSAT test takers would not be going to law school and most of the nations law schools would close(maybe even 1 or 2 of the beloved T14). Best of luck with your applications and I hope you get lots of money from whatever school you like best or decide is the best fit for you!

.

.

joeytribbiani wrote:

youngwarrior wrote:

Skye94 wrote:Hi all,

What are my changes at T-14 and should I even apply to the 1-6 schools? I applied to the 7-14 so far but not 1-6 just in case I want to reapply next year. I know I should retake the LSAT but its easier said than done to actually improve my score. I appreciate your feedback.

LSAT: 165
- GPA: 4.00
- Ivy League undergrad, Honors
- Major in Philosophy
- 1 rec should be outstanding, the other should just be decent
- Decent EC's
- non URM, female, low socioeconomic/first-gen

Imho you should sit out this cycle and retake in June or September, if not you'd be doing a huge disservice to yourself. With a 172+ (which you are fully capable of scoring), you're looking at HYS/money at 7-14 schools.

By no means am I arguing, but just wondering what makes you say "which you are fully capable of scoring" without knowing anything of their LSAT prep? Maybe I missed something, in which case I accept full stupidity and am happy to learn. Just wondering how you make such a claim based on no other information about studying for their first LSAT. Jumping from a 165 to 172 is pretty big - not impossible but by no means easy.

The fact that so many high LSAT scorers(including those who retook and had huge bumps) are on the forum means they disproportionately represent the likelihood of those outcomes. They are thus in an echo chamber and become convinced that everyone is capable of a large score increase, when in reality most people do not get huge increases out of their retake or retakes(especially if they studied properly for all of them and I have a feeling that a 165 studied properly). This is similar to many things in life where people have the "if most people I know can do it, why can't everyone else?" mentality. Almost no one is capable of scoring a 172+ on the LSAT, that's just the reality and having this be the default is ridiculous. To cure my application anxiety I've been looking at some old TLS threads(2010,2011) and people used to be far more reasonable about how much to expect from retaking(and this was when LSAT scores had less mileage and a 165 could get you considerably less than today).

chargers21 wrote:

Ferrisjso wrote:

BigZuck wrote:

Ferrisjso wrote:You are in a wonderful position. Can't believe there are people telling a 4.0 with a 165 to retake, smfh. You're going to have some great choices!

What is your argument for the OP not retaking?

OP's GPA is above the 75th of every school in the country. A 4.0 makes up for some of the splitters these schools want to admit. Her LSAT should get her into everything but the T6 with money( and could probably get accepted to at least one of Chicago, Columbia or NYU with little to no money if dead set on it, if shed applied). She didn't apply to the T6 anyway. A 90th percentile plus LSAT score isn't worth waiting a cycle(I'm of the philosophy that taking a year off between undergrad and graduate studies is a terrible idea unless you have a specific reason to do so) to retake unless you need to compensate for the GPA, which is not the case here. The LSAT simply isn't weak enough to keep OP out of almost any school and the opens the door at every single one. If the OP had time to retake without delaying a cycle, I'd say go for it why not, but there's no guarantee that the score will improve(and the OP is skeptical it will)and taking a year off on the chance the score will go up doesn't seem to be worth it. OP has applied to 7 of the T14, will probably be admitted to almost all or all of them and receive various amounts of money from them(look at the 509's) There really is no reason for OP to retake unless they are dead set on one of the 6 schools in the T14 they didn't apply to and are willing to wait a year for a chance(not a guarantee) to be admitted to one. Don't like the retake consensus guilt you into thinking you're making the wrong decision, you're not. If you're happy with one of your options do it, if not wait a year and reapply and/or retake. You're in a great position and don't let the disproportionate amount of people with higher LSAT scores on here fool you into thinking otherwise. You did better than over 90% of LSAT test takers and have a higher GPA that every single person on this thread would do virtually anything for. The fact that people would advise retake on an applicant like this, really weakens the credibility of their arguments. If this applicant should retake that means that every sub 165 LSAT should retake(because they will inherently have an equal or lesser GPA), not to mention people with higher LSAT's and lower GPA's. I understand the market is saturated but in a hypothetical world where students were forced to retake or not go to law school if they were in a situation equal or worse than this over 95% of LSAT test takers would not be going to law school and most of the nations law schools would close(maybe even 1 or 2 of the beloved T14). Best of luck with your applications and I hope you get lots of money from whatever school you like best or decide is the best fit for you!

a 4.0/165 person is a better candidate for a retake than a 3.0/165 candidate on the grounds that they likely can do better, get a lot more money, and theoretically have a shot at every school if they do improve. That's the thinking on reverse splitters retaking. And I am one.

This is a fair point, I hadn't thought of that from that angle. Still though, the 3.0/165 will almost certainly have worse outcomes than a 165/4.0. With such good outcomes why would one want to skip a year on the off chance they improve? Retaking makes sense if you're not throwing away a year but if one is satisfied with their outcomes why would one want to put LS off a year for the chance of improvement(which is very far from a guarantee especially for someone who already has done very, very well like OP). Cost Benefit in OP's situation seems to heavily favor going to LS this year.

Ferrisjso wrote:

youngwarrior wrote:

Skye94 wrote:Hi all,

What are my changes at T-14 and should I even apply to the 1-6 schools? I applied to the 7-14 so far but not 1-6 just in case I want to reapply next year. I know I should retake the LSAT but its easier said than done to actually improve my score. I appreciate your feedback.

LSAT: 165
- GPA: 4.00
- Ivy League undergrad, Honors
- Major in Philosophy
- 1 rec should be outstanding, the other should just be decent
- Decent EC's
- non URM, female, low socioeconomic/first-gen

By no means am I arguing, but just wondering what makes you say "which you are fully capable of scoring" without knowing anything of their LSAT prep? Maybe I missed something, in which case I accept full stupidity and am happy to learn. Just wondering how you make such a claim based on no other information about studying for their first LSAT. Jumping from a 165 to 172 is pretty big - not impossible but by no means easy.

The fact that so many high LSAT scorers(including those who retook and had huge bumps) are on the forum means they disproportionately represent the likelihood of those outcomes. They are thus in an echo chamber and become convinced that everyone is capable of a large score increase, when in reality most people do not get huge increases out of their retake or retakes(especially if they studied properly for all of them and I have a feeling that a 165 studied properly). This is similar to many things in life where people have the "if most people I know can do it, why can't everyone else?" mentality. Almost no one is capable of scoring a 172+ on the LSAT, that's just the reality and having this be the default is ridiculous. To cure my application anxiety I've been looking at some old TLS threads(2010,2011) and people used to be far more reasonable about how much to expect from retaking(and this was when LSAT scores had less mileage and a 165 could get you considerably less than today).

+1. I think these forums are pretty good for getting second opinions, but they also seem to treat 99th percentile scores as the norm, which they are not, and those opinions can (inappropriately, in my opinion) discourage someone from applying when they otherwise have great numbers. Let's not forget, a 165 is already in the 91st percentile.

In my opinion, if you feel that now is the right time for you to go to law school, you shouldn't feel discouraged from applying this cycle. With your numbers I think you will have a great shot at the T14--the tippy-top schools may be a reach because of the score, but your GPA also carries a ton of weight as well. Retaking is certainly an option, and if you believe that you can squeeze out 2-3+ points on a future exam, then a retake is something to seriously consider. However, don't feel for a second that your 165 score will stop you from getting into a top law school. Think on it and evaluate your options, because you know yourself best.

Why wouldn't they take the shot at getting even better outcomes, though, when their GPA suggests that's entirely possible? Why not try again at the LSAT? There's absolutely no harm in it, even if you do worse.

And this

I'm of the philosophy that taking a year off between undergrad and graduate studies is a terrible idea unless you have a specific reason to do so

is really just such bad advice. I realize that people don't want to take time off because then they have to find something to do with that year (or 2 or 3 or whatever), and that's scary. I know because I was K-other-grad-degree for all those reasons. But even if you are confident that you have maxed out your GPA/LSAT, you're SURE you REALLY want to be a lawyer for the rest of your life, and you have objectively good options for law school, there's a lot to be said for taking time off. Primarily, you will handle the whole job search process MUCH better if you have already worked full time to support yourself living somewhere that's not home/college, understand from experience something about how the full-time permanent work world works, have had to compete for jobs, and have had the chance to really learn what kind of work you, personally, enjoy and are good at, and what kind of work environment you thrive in. I tend to think you can't really know this kind of stuff until you actually live it. So that way you can go to law school knowing more to be able to make good choices when you're there, and not have to figure all those things out while choosing your big ultimate career.

And again, if someone decides that going K-JD is really the right thing for them, personally, that's fine too. Telling others it's a bad idea to go straight through is just baseless and reeks of trying to justify your own choices.

Ferrisjso wrote: Cost Benefit in OP's situation seems to heavily favor going to LS this year.

I mean its nice that you think that, but in reality it doesn't. Let's say OP's goal is to go to a top 14 school (forgetting about exactly what she wants to do after law school). She has two options, apply now with her current statistics or retake and apply next cycle. In option one she has a very small chance of going T6 and a pretty high chance at the rest of the T14, but with little to no scholarship. In option two, she can retake the LSAT (either she will get a lower/the same score - in which case she will be in the same spot as option one - or she will get a higher score - much more likely given her scenario) and apply to the same schools. Depending oh her score, she will most likely receive between a half and full scholarship at 14-8, have a great shot at CCN w/ $ and HYS (170+ makes you really competitive for a significant scholarship at CCN and acceptance at HYS).

Take a school like Michigan for example. Option 1 OP gets in with maybe a $10,000/year discount. Option 2 OP gets in with maybe a $40,000/year discount.

If OP does not retake:

The cost:30,000 x 3 x interest = +$100,000.

The benefit: she does not have to take an additional year before starting law school and does not have to study again for the LSAT.

So lets think about it. Is $100,000, or a shot at HYS, worth 4-5 months of studying for the LSAT where you only need 5-7 more right answers to get the score you need?

In my mind the rush to start law school makes no sense, if your'e young take the time and enjoy it before you start Law School if your'e older you probably already have a job/life that does not necessitate an immediate change.

Trust me, once you start paying back loans $100,000 won't feel like some abstract number that is way in the distance.

(This whole argument is moot if OP hits on $$$$ at a T14, but given the info she has provided and the situation she is in it does not make sense to be against waiting a cycle and retaking until you can get a better score).

FWIW, going to mylsn.info and plugging in the OP's numbers doesn't paint nearly as rosy a picture as some here would like to suggest - the stats are in at Penn (randomly), Cornell and GULC without money, maybe at UVA, and out everywhere else. Don't get me wrong, there would be some very decent options there (better than any I had), but this is someone who was asking about the T6, and has an opportunity to make that happen. And yes, it's a small sample, but since ABA 509s don't show you what GPA went with which LSAT, mylsn is what we have.

Also, ferrisjo, the disclosure of things like ABA 509s and development of law school transparency were really in their infancy in 2010 & 2011. People were less informed about what job options really were and what kind of debt they'd be taking on. People didn't become more pessimistic for no reason.

.

ToGetIntoTheBoysHole wrote:

Ferrisjso wrote: Cost Benefit in OP's situation seems to heavily favor going to LS this year.

I mean its nice that you think that, but in reality it doesn't. Let's say OP's goal is to go to a top 14 school (forgetting about exactly what she wants to do after law school). She has two options, apply now with her current statistics or retake and apply next cycle. In option one she has a very small chance of going T6 and a pretty high chance at the rest of the T14, but with little to no scholarship. In option two, she can retake the LSAT (either she will get a lower/the same score - in which case she will be in the same spot as option one - or she will get a higher score - much more likely given her scenario) and apply to the same schools. Depending oh her score, she will most likely receive between a half and full scholarship at 14-8, have a great shot at CCN w/ $ and HYS (170+ makes you really competitive for a significant scholarship at CCN and acceptance at HYS).

Take a school like Michigan for example. Option 1 OP gets in with maybe a $10,000/year discount. Option 2 OP gets in with maybe a $40,000/year discount.

If OP does not retake:

The cost:30,000 x 3 x interest = +$100,000.

The benefit: she does not have to take an additional year before starting law school and does not have to study again for the LSAT.

So lets think about it. Is $100,000, or a shot at HYS, worth 4-5 months of studying for the LSAT where you only need 5-7 more right answers to get the score you need?

In my mind the rush to start law school makes no sense, if your'e young take the time and enjoy it before you start Law School if your'e older you probably already have a job/life that does not necessitate an immediate change.

Trust me, once you start paying back loans $100,000 won't feel like some abstract number that is way in the distance.

(This whole argument is moot if OP hits on $$$$ at a T14, but given the info she has provided and the situation she is in it does not make sense to be against waiting a cycle and retaking until you can get a better score).

The main disagreement I have is the likelihood of increasing her LSAT score, especially a 170+. You make it sound as if all someone needs to do is just study for 4-5 months and an increase is ensured. It is not that simple if it were more people would get 170+. Your logic is sound but again is dependent on the increased LSAT score(and by a few points also) and the OP finding a year off to be a positive. 100k for a T14 is a really good outcome and to be fair I think OP might even do a little better than that. I'm currently at 69k, 95k and 72-132k for T2's. My whole argument is moot if OP hits on $$$$ at the T14 but again we disagree on likelihood.

In response to Mouse's comments(don't really feel like making two separate posts) I strongly disagree and I feel it's super important I convey why because this seems to be a common theme in many threads. I feel there is a mistaken assumption that the average person is not miserable in their pre law lives(I constantly hear waiting a year referred to along the lines of "have fun a little bit longer"), for some people(I'd even guess a majority) waiting a year is torture, rather than an enjoyable experience. If we're playing an automated game trying to get the best law school admissions outcome, then yes retake wait a year, repeat until desired outcome but human beings actually have to live that year and for many, one of the reasons we want law school(maybe this is true of OP, maybe it isn't, I don't know) is because we want to avoid the experiences Mouse was mentioning. The workforce is an exploitative ugly place one shouldn't enter until they have the position they want, unless they absolutely have to for economic reasons(and for many, many people this is the case). Mouse, I know you mean well but from my vantage point(and I know many of my peers feel the same way) it certainly sounds like suffering for sufferings sake. Working is already bad enough when you have to work, why work(and in a job that doesn't interest you at all) when you can go to law school and (hopefully depending on employment) skip out on that all together? Most people I talk to, tend to see the whole "get all of this experience" argument as empty words. I somehow doubt working at a gas station(the most popular hypothetical gap year job on here from my vantage point) teaches you about competing for jobs.

Another thing that I was thinking about that gets overlooked in the whole gap year discussion is the vast differences in social environment in this country. While some posters hometown's are places that might be nice to just live another year with your friends, millions of people are desperately trying to escape the violence and toxic atmosphere of inner cities and law students are no difference. Staying home for a year suddenly is a lot less attractive when you suddenly read a facebook post about a pharmacy being robbed at gunpoint a few hours after you were there buying food or attend your first funeral for someone you knew who's been shot(I have many more examples but I think that's enough for the point of what I'm trying to say). This is mainly an urban thing that the rural and suburban majority of America simply doesn't quite understand(nor the legions of excited 0L's dreaming of going to one of the big cities). There are also toxic and self destructive social lives that people need to and/or want to escape. It is not as simple for everyone as being patient and waiting another year to retake and I just wanted to convey part of why some people are insistent on K-JD. I'm not sure if this is at all relevant to OP, maybe it is, maybe it isn't but seeing as the purpose of this forum is to give people advice, I feel like this is relevant in the advice we all give.

@Ferris You seem kind of young, so I'll take some of the points you're making with that in mind, but I'm not sure you're quite getting it.

If you have gotten a 165 before, you can get a score that is 168+. It has been a while since I have taken the LSAT, but I'm pretty sure at 165+ each additional question you get right comes to about a +1 bump in your LSAT score. It is not crazy to think that given OP already achieved a 165 that she could get a 170 on a future test. With additional studying/practice an extra 5 or 6 correct answers is a very realistic outcome.

100k for a T14 is a really good outcome and to be fair I think OP might even do a little better than that.

I agree paying $100,000 for a T14 is a pretty good option, but that is not what we are talking about here. $100,000 is merely a hypothetical differential between close to sticker and a larger scholarship. At sticker you're coming out with ~$300,000 in debt and at a half tuition scholarship you are looking at around $150,000 in debt.

It is very very unlikely that OP is going to get significant $$$ in the T14 given her stats (it could theoretically happen, but giving advice like it is a probable outcome just does a disservice to OP)

Your points on a year off being torture and using law school as an escape from a bad familial situation, IMO are pretty childish. You've graduated college and getting a job is just the next phase in your life. Acting like its some terrible thing to have to work for a year, god forbid in a job you don't like, is just out of touch with reality. What makes finding a job and working torture? Do you think whatever job you will end up getting will be beneath you? Are you scared of what your peers will think of you, if you have to take 6 months "working at a gas station"?

I don't know if you've ever had a full time job, but when you say things like this it makes me question your judgement.

Working is already bad enough when you have to work, why work(and in a job that doesn't interest you at all) when you can go to law school

At times in your life, work will not be something you want to do, but you just have to deal with it and keep going. This mentality, of "hey why work when I can just go to law school right now" is only going to present problems for yourself down the road. It is pretty simple, if you find a job, earn a little money, do marginally better on the LSAT you are going to save your future self thousands and thousands of dollars.

If OP ends up getting into a school she likes at a level of debt she is comfortable with, I see no problem with her just going for it. That does not change the fact that retaking the LSAT will save her more money/get her into better schools.

it certainly sounds like suffering for sufferings sake.

What is your definition of suffering? Studying for the LSAT and working a low-stakes job? To be blunt, what you're saying comes of as obtuse and makes you sound like you lack real life experience.

There is always the possibility that a retake will not increase your score but that is just the risk you take. It does not change the fact that there is a great chance that by taking the time to study/retake, OP would be making her applications much more competitive. It doesn't need to be torture, it doesn't need to be an enjoyable experience, it just needs to be something that will help her in the long run.

As to the point about being in a bad home environment, that is unfortunate, but it is not a reason to rush into law school. If living with your parents (whether it be due to the location or the stigma) is something that is truly off putting to you, there are plenty of safe areas all across the country with very cheap rent that can be paid for on the most modest of salaries. Law school shouldn't be your escape, it is an opportunity to advance your career/life not get out of a toxic social situation.

If you are insistent on being a KJD, but completely ignore the benefits of potential alternatives and don't properly weigh your options, it just seems impatient.

Well, we clearly have our annual contrarian-because-it-feels-so-good poster identified.

I think everyone's covered exactly how wrong @Ferris's individual points have been, and I assume that the OP's econ major has put her in a position to understand just how ridiculous those points were in the first place.

OP: Stop psyching yourself out. You're in a great place to retake and see massive improvement in your results with even a few points of increase. If you break into the 170s, you'll be golden. You have a degree from a good school; you can get a decent job while you study up for the LSAT. Don't waste your 4.0, because a retake is literally the difference between Georgetown at sticker and CCN for free.

Edit: Totally forgot to mention that even if you can only bump that score up 3-4 points, NYU specifically has a scholarship for first-generation grad school students. Look into it and see if it doesn't motivate you to wait a little bit.