Stop Telling People to Retake Forum

[chicagoburger]

When people ask for serious advice here, the first answer they should expect is "Retake", which is very sad. Many of these seasoned TLSers don't understand that "Retake" is not an option to most of the people, nor should it.

First, the opportunity cost of retaking the test is huge. Spending one extra year of your life on this freaking stupid test should only be considered when you don't have a life, a real life.

Secondly, people know what they want and what can be reached. If I got only 3.4 gpa and I want to stay in Chicago, pass the bar, why do I need to retake to shoot for UChicago?

Thirdly, LSAT is curved. Only 30% people can get above 160. You advise all those 70% below to retake for a year. They will score differently, but most of them will be below 160 again. The "retake" suggestion simply won't work for most of the applicants mathematically speaking.

Lastly, if the person wants to ask a question regarding a school choice, we should assume that person has done the homework and covered the retake option.

So next time if you see any legit questions, please don't reply "retake".

[lymenheimer]

Novel thoughts and opinions here. Very filled with nuance and accuracy. Thank you for your contribution.

[Alexandros]

Novel thoughts and opinions here. Very filled with nuance and accuracy. Thank you for your contribution.

[mjb447]

I think people here generally "understand" most of the points you're making.

(1) The opportunity cost + actual cost of going to law school is greater, usually especially so if that law school's outcomes are such that you get a lot of advice to retake. A year sounds like a long time when you're coming out of college or a few years out like most people who post here, but it's not necessarily a long time to invest in getting the best shot at a degree that will be with you until you die.

(2) Do they? Particularly if they're asking internet strangers what they should do with their life? In any event, when I see "retake" it's usually in the context of either (a) "retake if you want to achieve the goals you've specified" or (b) "retake if you want to be a lawyer because that score/those schools aren't conducive to long term employment in law" or something similar.

(3) Unless TLS posters are a significant portion of LSAT takers (dubious), I'm not worried that advising two people on TLS to retake pits them against each other in any meaningful way.

(4) The assumption that people who post here necessarily do much research before doing so is belied by lots of posts on here.

(5 (bonus!)) People who attend law school are at least nominally adults. If they're prepared to spend three years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to go to law school, they're capable of evaluating an anonymous stranger's advice and discarding it if they don't like it.

[poptart123]

When people ask for serious advice here, the first answer they should expect is "Retake", which is very sad. Many of these seasoned TLSers don't understand that "Retake" is not an option to most of the people, nor should it.

First, the opportunity cost of retaking the test is huge. Spending one extra year of your life on this freaking stupid test should only be considered when you don't have a life, a real life.

Secondly, people know what they want and what can be reached. If I got only 3.4 gpa and I want to stay in Chicago, pass the bar, why do I need to retake to shoot for UChicago?

Thirdly, LSAT is curved. Only 30% people can get above 160. You advise all those 70% below to retake for a year. They will score differently, but most of them will be below 160 again. The "retake" suggestion simply won't work for most of the applicants mathematically speaking.

Lastly, if the person wants to ask a question regarding a school choice, we should assume that person has done the homework and covered the retake option.

So next time if you see any legit questions, please don't reply "retake".

Respectfully, as somebody who retook from the advice on TLS, here are my thoughts.

First, spending one year of your life to save $100,000.00+ seems like a good deal.

Secondly, why would you not want to maximize your chances at success by attending the best school you can and/or the best school for what you want to do at the least cost?

Thirdly, the LSAT is not curved like you think. Theoretically, it is possible for all applicants in a year to get a 180.

Lastly, why should we assume this?

[Future Ex-Engineer]

As per what is contained in the post, I would assume you are fresh out of undergrad, or potentially still in undergrad.

One extra year to wait is not a lot of time, and tons of us don't spend that year exclusively studying - we have real jobs that we work.

So, I must conclude by saying you have only one option: retake.

[pancakes3]

First, the opportunity cost of retaking the test is huge. Spending one extra year of your life on this freaking stupid test should only be considered when you don't have a life, a real life.

Wrong

Secondly, people know what they want and what can be reached. If I got only 3.4 gpa and I want to stay in Chicago, pass the bar, why do I need to retake to shoot for UChicago?

wrong

Thirdly, LSAT is curved. Only 30% people can get above 160. You advise all those 70% below to retake for a year. They will score differently, but most of them will be below 160 again. The "retake" suggestion simply won't work for most of the applicants mathematically speaking.

wrong

Lastly, if the person wants to ask a question regarding a school choice, we should assume that person has done the homework and covered the retake option.

wrong.

[LikelyThrowaway]

First few comments are unhelpful, unfunny snark. The wrong wrong wrong guy is dickish. The flippant sarcasm on this site kinda sucks.

OP: it's true that people on TLS often go to the retake advice reflexively, and tend to ignore the costs associated with it. But it really is a good rule of thumb. The reality of the debt load and iffy employment prospects at lower-ranked schools make law school a bad decision for a lot of people with LSAT scores in the 150-160 range. Sure, putting off your plans for a year and sinking yet more time into studying is a big burden, one that gets given short shrift around here. But $150,000+ in student loans with poor odds of landing a job that will make it feasible to pay back that debt is a MUCH bigger burden. Encouraging people to either move themselves into a better position as an applicant or just not go to law school is a good thing to do, even if it's unpleasant to hear (and often delivered pretty rudely on here imo).

[Future Ex-Engineer]

First few comments are unhelpful, unfunny snark. The wrong wrong wrong guy is dickish. The flippant sarcasm on this site kinda sucks.

OP: it's true that people on TLS often go to the retake advice reflexively, and tend to ignore the costs associated with it. But it really is a good rule of thumb. The reality of the debt load and iffy employment prospects at lower-ranked schools make law school a bad decision for a lot of people with LSAT scores in the 150-160 range. Sure, putting off your plans for a year and sinking yet more time into studying is a big burden, one that gets given short shrift around here. But $150,000+ in student loans with poor odds of landing a job that will make it feasible to pay back that debt is a MUCH bigger burden. Encouraging people to either move themselves into a better position as an applicant or just not go to law school is a good thing to do, even if it's unpleasant to hear (and often delivered pretty rudely on here imo).

So you started by saying none of the first comments were helpful/useful and then just re-stated exactly what all of them said. Nice

[TLSModBot]

Retake

[TLSModBot]

Also the sarcasm on this site is the best part

[smaug]

Retake

Retake life tbh

[cavalier1138]

I assume you're referring to this thread, where you indicated that you didn't want to retake, because you'll just place at the top of your class anyway. Solid plan.

Anyway, your understanding of the LSAT "curve" is entirely incorrect, so any assumptions you make about the difficulty of improving your score are similarly incorrect. No one has actually told you that you need to go to UChicago (literally no one) for your career goals. All you've been told is that you cannot get yourself into six figures of debt at a school like John Marshall or DePaul, because you won't be able to dig yourself out of that hole.

You do you. But please come back here in a few years to let everyone know how your philosophy worked out in practice.

[mjb447]

First few comments are unhelpful, unfunny snark. The wrong wrong wrong guy is dickish. The flippant sarcasm on this site kinda sucks.

OP: it's true that people on TLS often go to the retake advice reflexively, and tend to ignore the costs associated with it. But it really is a good rule of thumb. The reality of the debt load and iffy employment prospects at lower-ranked schools make law school a bad decision for a lot of people with LSAT scores in the 150-160 range. Sure, putting off your plans for a year and sinking yet more time into studying is a big burden, one that gets given short shrift around here. But $150,000+ in student loans with poor odds of landing a job that will make it feasible to pay back that debt is a MUCH bigger burden. Encouraging people to either move themselves into a better position as an applicant or just not go to law school is a good thing to do, even if it's unpleasant to hear (and often delivered pretty rudely on here imo).

So you started by saying none of the first comments were helpful/useful and then just re-stated exactly what all of them said. Nice

I assumed he was talking about the two "Novel thoughts and opinions here. Very filled with nuance and accuracy. Thank you for your contribution."

[CanadianWolf]

Law school admissions is primarily about one's LSAT score. Additionally, scholarship money is offered typically to those with above median LSAT scores for that particular law school. If, for example, you want to live & practice in Minnesota & the University of Minnesota Law School has accepted you & offered a full tuition scholarship without contingencies, then there is no pressing need to retake.

[Incrementalist]

I am not one to always tell someone to retake. I feel if someone has evaluated their odds and a comfortable with that choice then the choice is theirs alone. And no one should dictate or make them feel less of themselves for the choice they made. I do agree with you in the sense that a lot of people who come on this site are T14 or bust and thats fine. But a lot fail to realize that's not everyone's goal. And it's not mathematically possible for everyone to be accepted into the T14. However, I do believe you need to take into consideration that a retake can ultimately be the difference of being unemployed and in financial debt as opposed to waiting a year or so and bettering your odds to at least go to a school where you can become gainfully employed afterwards.

[TAD]

Secondly, people know what they want and what can be reached.

I've never been one to tell anyone to retake, but come on!

I didn't prepare for LSAT and scored 158
if I invest time to study this thing, I should be able to score 10 points higher.

[pancakes3]

i'm not being sarcastic when i called out OP for being wrong. he's absolutely wrong. it's not a matter of opinion. he's logically/factually wrong.

[BigZuck]

I don't get the handwringing over TLS not just telling people what they want to hear and/or giving bad advice about law school admissions when literally every other avenue for advice (parents, pre-law advisors, adcoms, great aunts) will give you exactly that. HEAVEN FORBID one website tell you that your plan isn't a good one and you need to approach things in a different way.

Also the "But, but a year is toooooo long! You don't get it" thing doesn't work when the people dolling out that advice were retaking/reapplying in their late 20s, working crappy jobs just to scrape by, etc.

[Colonel_funkadunk]

Also the sarcasm on this site is the best part

it's the only reason I have multiple k comments

[Mikey]

the lsat isn't curved in that way, bro





oh, and chill out

[BlendedUnicorn]

I think people here generally "understand" most of the points you're making.

(1) The opportunity cost + actual cost of going to law school is greater, usually especially so if that law school's outcomes are such that you get a lot of advice to retake. A year sounds like a long time when you're coming out of college or a few years out like most people who post here, but it's not necessarily a long time to invest in getting the best shot at a degree that will be with you until you die.

(2) Do they? Particularly if they're asking internet strangers what they should do with their life? In any event, when I see "retake" it's usually in the context of either (a) "retake if you want to achieve the goals you've specified" or (b) "retake if you want to be a lawyer because that score/those schools aren't conducive to long term employment in law" or something similar.

(3) Unless TLS posters are a significant portion of LSAT takers (dubious), I'm not worried that advising two people on TLS to retake pits them against each other in any meaningful way.

(4) The assumption that people who post here necessarily do much research before doing so is belied by lots of posts on here.

(5 (bonus!)) People who attend law school are at least nominally adults. If they're prepared to spend three years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to go to law school, they're capable of evaluating an anonymous stranger's advice and discarding it if they don't like it.

But 6 they probably shouldn't because TLS is usually (read: always) right about this sort of thing.

[stego]

As someone who retook multiple times because of this site I think the advice to retake is probably good advice for the most part.

No, the LSAT is not curved in the way the OP suggested - it's test-equated to ensure different administrations are given comparable scores despite slight differences in level of difficulty. But I'm not exactly sure how that undercuts the underlying point. You still have to perform better than most people to have a shot at the best schools and significant scholarships.

That said, most LSAT takers probably shouldn't go to law school.

http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/ls ... -lsac.html

[A. Nony Mouse]

Law school admissions is primarily about one's LSAT score. Additionally, scholarship money is offered typically to those with above median LSAT scores for that particular law school. If, for example, you want to live & practice in Minnesota & the University of Minnesota Law School has accepted you & offered a full tuition scholarship without contingencies, then there is no pressing need to retake.

And I think that if someone makes that clear when posting, no one's going to tell them to retake. (Well, maybe not no one, but most wouldn't.)

[sethnoorzad]

Lol I'm gonna side with the minority and say that OP makes a good point. "Retake" is a rote answer that doesn't really address anything and it gets annoying.