Talk to me...3.3 GPA, Sept-163, Dec-170, Feb -Retake? Forum

[davisuga]

Sept (163) - I underperformed and was pretty disappointed. Consistently scored in the mid to high 160s on practice tests prior to the day. Various things occured that I plan on addressing with an addendum.

Dec (170) - If anything, I overperformed a bit I reckon. I took no other practice tests after the September test. Actually, I didn't study much at all aside from a couple LG sections and an occasional LR section (all withing a week and a half of the test). Better testing conditions, much more relaxed, and in a much better mental state overall. HOWEVER, my spread went something like LG -1, LR -4, and RC -9 (yes, a whopping -9).

I'm realistic. 170/98th is legitimate and i'm proud of myself. With that said, I want to stay in the southeast after law school and would LOVE to have a shot at either UVA or Vandy. I figured with a 163/170 I'm already dinged at UVA, although it is worth the app fee, IMO at least. Anybody else have any thoughts on UVA?

What about Vandy? I figure the 170 might place me on the WL and then my Feb score can give me a shot? Or will a 170 have me dinged before I even get a chance to receive my Feb score?

Further, other schools I'm considering include UGA, UNC, Bama, and Tulane. I figure a retake could potentially help with $$$ from either of these. Honestly, UGA or Tulane would be sweet. UGA for price (in-state) and Tulane for NOLA. Can I retake and legitimately have a shot at Vandy? Or a LOOOONG shot at UVA? Legitimately boost $$$ chances at my other choices? Or just stand pat?

[aether]

Don't retake. You said that you "overperformed a bit" to get the 170, and that you feel the score "is legitimate". It wouldn't be in your interests to retake unless you were fairly confident of gaining several points, and from your comments, you aren't. 170 is a great score. Be proud and send your apps.

Have you already checked the Law School Predictor web site? For your numbers it reports a 29% at UVA and 40% at Vanderbilt, meaning that 29%/40% of the students at those two schools had equal or worse numbers than you do. Your assumption ("I'm already dinged at UVA") is definitely not correct, especially since UVA is one of the schools that uses your highest LSAT score rather than averaging two scores. You have a shot. Don't give up before the kickoff!

Make sure your application packet is solid, apply to all your chosen schools, and set up a tent next to your mailbox like the rest of us.

[UTexas]

If you overperformed in December, I would be very cautious about retaking. You could conceivably do worse. You can minimize the 163 with a good addendum/explanation. If you are now doing consistently better than 170 on PTs, maybe. If not, I wouldn't risk making the 170 look like the outlier.

Run your numbers on http://www.lawschoolpredictor.com. Your numbers are competitive for plenty of very good to excellent schools. Consider applying ED to UVA. Your numbers (assuming a 3.30) are equal to or better than those of 35%, 29%, 51%, 40%, 56% of admitted applicants at Duke, UVA, Texas, Vandy, and Emory, respectively. You're at 59%, 72%, 65%, 65%, and 86% for GWU, Bama, UNC, UGA, and Tulane, respectively.

A retake doesn't seem like a great idea to me. Write a great PS and you'll have a legitimate shot at some great schools and you'll be in very strong position for a bunch of T30 to T40 schools.

[davisuga]

Thanks for the advice I've received so far. My major problem is that I'm applying this cycle and I haven't sent in my apps yet. I have to finish my personal statement and my recommenders need to speed up the process a bit. Therefore, applying ED to UVA really isn't an option.

[vanwinkle]

Thanks for the advice I've received so far. My major problem is that I'm applying this cycle and I haven't sent in my apps yet. I have to finish my personal statement and my recommenders need to speed up the process a bit. Therefore, applying ED to UVA really isn't an option.

Then get your apps in now! you can't ED to UVA, but you can write them a "Why UVA" addendum clearly stating that you WILL attend if accepted. If you get rejected from T14, wait a year and apply again, EDing to UVA or a peer school if that's your goal.

[UTexas]

Gotcha. Then I strongly suggest that you do not retake. I doubt you've had the time to shift 170 toward the low end of your PT range, and if you put in maximum effort to make that happen over the next month, you're going to shortchange other parts of your application. All while still running the substantial risk that you get an equal or lesser lower score.

Put together a strong overall application and you'll get into plenty of the schools you mentioned.

[aether]

Thanks for the advice I've received so far. My major problem is that I'm applying this cycle and I haven't sent in my apps yet. I have to finish my personal statement and my recommenders need to speed up the process a bit.

I suppose it wouldn't be helpful for me to shout "OMG! YOU'RE LATE!!"

Seriously, however, you are running down to the wire. Please be aware that it's much more difficult to get admitted if you apply on/near the official deadline. Either get your apps in quickly or start building a backup plan for next year's cycle.

[davisuga]

Hate to bump my own thread, but I need to make a decision on this sometime before the regular LSAT deadline which is the 5th. Anybody care to argue in a different direction or am I being completely unreasonable? Prior to posting this message, I talked myself into a retake. Not too busy this semester, haven't studied up to my potential yet, most classes this semester are electives, feeling especially motivated and rejuvinated after an extended break...

[aether]

Not too busy this semester, haven't studied up to my potential yet

So the plan is to "study up to your potential" for the LSAT while simultaneously writing your personal statement, completing your law school applications, and maintaining your GPA in classes? All in four weeks?

You're overreaching.

[swm5057]

You may want to make your decision based on which school you want to attend. While retaking may enable you to earn a higher LSAT score, it may also delay your applications from being reviewed until March.

This data may help (at least for schools that take highest, not average): --LinkRemoved--

You're a LSP weak consider from Penn-Virginia and a consider from Cornell-Vanderbilt. With a strong application (focus on PS), you may have a strong chance at several of those schools.

FYI, I am in a similar position with a Dec 170 retake (Sep 161). I am fortunate to have a higher GPA (though liberal arts major), so I decided to apply this past week and take my chances.

[Sourpunch]

Haha the only reason you got a 170 in December is because of the -14 curve. Otherwise, you actually only got 2 more raw score points than last time. Think about that and realize that if the curve reverts back to -11, you might get your ass fucked.

Just apply with that 170.

[DanInALionsDen]

Haha the only reason you got a 170 in December is because of the -14 curve. Otherwise, you actually only got 2 more raw score points than last time. Think about that and realize that if the curve reverts back to -11, you might get your ass fucked.

Just apply with that 170.

And while you're thinking about that, also consider that this person ^ has no idea how curves work, and take that as a reminder that ultimately you can't blindly rely on TLSers, or any single outside source. Ultimately you're going to have to decide what works for you.

[bkbkbk]

It blows my mind that so many people were not exposed to the concept of a curve in highschool.

[aether]

It blows my mind that so many people were not exposed to the concept of a curve in highschool.

As you know, nearly 80% of people have a below-average comprehension of statistics...

[vanwinkle]

It blows my mind that so many people were not exposed to the concept of a curve in highschool.

As you know, nearly 80% of people have a below-average comprehension of statistics...

Bahahahahaha. Well played.

[davisuga]

Yeah, I think the curve had relatively little to do with me improving to a 170. That argument can't be legitimately made by anyone who understands a curve. Anyway, I guess the biggest decider for me is that my top two choices would be Vandy and UVA...but I'm not going to either at full price. No way, no how. And a 170/3.3 MIGHT get me into one of the two...but I sure as hell will not receive any financial aid. So, if I'm more than like into UGA (in state)/Tulane (probable $$), then why not take the test again? Is this terrible logic?

[aether]

Is this terrible logic?

Yes. If (1) your applications were already mailed, (2) you had the time to prep, and (3) there were no chance of scoring lower, then it would be good logic. However the test is in just one month and your other commitments (writing your personal statement and completing your applications while maintaining your GPA) will prevent you from prepping enough to be reasonably confident of beating your "overperformed" 170.

You asked for advice, and every single opinion in this thread has been consistent: you should complete and send your applications ASAP.

However it sounds like you really want to retest anyway, and that's fine. It's your career and your decision. Does it really matter what the rest of us think?

[Sourpunch]

The curve is a DIRECT representation of the fact that too many idiots took the LSAT and there were A LOT of scores south of 160 this time around. It made sense to curve it at -14 otherwise there would be too many 140-160s and too little 160-180s.

This is a theory that many LSAT prep instructors are pushing so stop trying to ad hominem your way into an argument that the -14 was preset and pre-planned. It is COMPLETELY possible that LSAC added a few points to the curve in order to balance out this HUGE influx of test takers, courtesy of the economy.

[UTexas]

It just doesn't seem to me that you really have the time to move your likely score above the margin of error (an increase of at least three or four points), complete all other facets of the applications to the best of your ability, and maintain or improve your GPA. You can't take for granted that you can even average a 170 right now, since you said you felt that was overperforming in December. Moving from mid to high 160s to 173 or better on a consistent basis takes a fair amount of work, and it's certainly questionable to think you have enough time to move 170 to the low end of your PT average and perform satisfactorily on everything else you have to do. If your applications were already completed, it might be more reasonable.

That's just my take, anyway, which you've already heard. I think you have to seriously consider the possibility of scoring at or below your previous high.

[09042014]

The curve is a DIRECT representation of the fact that too many idiots took the LSAT and there were A LOT of scores south of 160 this time around. It made sense to curve it at -14 otherwise there would be too many 140-160s and too little 160-180s.

That is not how the LSAT is curved. The test is precurved. Dec2009 was harder than other tests.

[TUP]

.

[Sourpunch]

Alright, you condescending jerk offs, here's exactly what Blueprint is arguing:

http://moststronglysupported.com/lsatni ... at-review/

It is debatable whether this trend will continue into the future, but it appears that the increasing numbers of test takers are finally having an effect. Less studying by them means a better curve for you.Thank you very much.

Unlike you, I am actually backing up my claims with a credible source-- someone who is experienced with the LSAT, its procedures and trends.

Furthermore, maybe LSAC fixed the curve 3 weeks in advance, knowing that there would be X number of takers who would fuck up according to statistics they got out of Sept. 09.

[09042014]

Alright, you condescending jerk offs, here's exactly what Blueprint is arguing:

http://moststronglysupported.com/lsatni ... at-review/

It is debatable whether this trend will continue into the future, but it appears that the increasing numbers of test takers are finally having an effect. Less studying by them means a better curve for you.Thank you very much.

Unlike you, I am actually backing up my claims with a credible source-- someone who is experienced with the LSAT, its procedures and trends.

Furthermore, maybe LSAC fixed the curve 3 weeks in advance, knowing that there would be X number of takers who would fuck up according to statistics they got out of Sept. 09.

Nope still wrong asshole.

[vanwinkle]

The curve is a DIRECT representation of the fact that too many idiots took the LSAT and there were A LOT of scores south of 160 this time around. It made sense to curve it at -14 otherwise there would be too many 140-160s and too little 160-180s.

That is not how the LSAT is curved. The test is precurved. Dec2009 was harder than other tests.

TITCR.

[Sourpunch]

lol you cocksuckers haven't shown me a single article or iota of proof regarding your own theories about the curve, and yet I have shown you articles that argue that the curve this time was determined by the fact that a large number of unprepared test takers took this exam.

So suck it, bitches.