I bubbled after each game for LG.(so bubble 5 or 6 or whatever at once) And bubbled each question for RC and LR. It was the most efficient and accurate way that I tried.

This totally depends on your numbers/goals to be honest. If you have median or above numbers to your goal schools it would be crazy to spend 3k+ for consulting. If I were you I would see what my lsat score is and go from there. A solid PS and good numbers is more than enough to achieve all of your goals without dropping 3k+ on consulting services.

The first two are correct. The 2nd two are incorrect.

Yes it rotates, it can also be bought at Wal-mart for around $10. That's where I got mine.

If you are saying your goal is to start your own practice without first "getting a job" while graduating from an unranked or low ranking school, I think that in itself is a very unrealistic expectation. In terms of employment, going to an unranked school is literally a coin flip in some cases and worse in other cases. I agree with the above poster though, if you can get accepted into a school in the 20s 30s etc you likely can get a full ride from a ranked school which would be your best option by far given the limited info in the post.

I have been out of work already for 3 years completing my undergrad, so sitting out another year is not an option.

Sorry to be that guy, but it is still an option. And it likely is your best option. Judging by you saying unc, emory, and iowa are three of your main choices, I assume you don't have a strong geographic preference and likely don't have ties to all 3 of those markets which means you NEED to go to the best school possible for the least amount of debt. Keep in mind 5 more points could easily mean 100 grand in this law school admissions game. If someone said "if you make 5 or more points higher on your next LSAT i will literally hand you 100k but you have to sit out law school for a year", would you take that offer?

Replacing the LG section with a math section might be the worst suggestion I have ever read on this forum.

Every current or retired attorney I've ever spoken to have said law school should be two years and the third year is a joke.

*Insert obligatory GO NOLES!* Since someone mentioned FSU up there^

Go to top law schools forums and click financial aid subforum. There is a spreadsheet with hypotheticals for every t14 school.

I frequent TLS and although a lot of them have a "t-14 or bust" mentality that is over the top, I don't think they are far off in their thinking. Paying 44k a year to go anywhere other than a t14 is a bad decision for most people. Ultimately you have to decide if it is a decision you are ok with. You are going to miss out on 3 years of work and come out with 150k in debt. With a 3.8 GPA there is absolutely no reason you aren't going to a school on a full scholarship other than the fact that you haven't retaken the lsat yet.

The answer to your question (in my opinion and in the opinion of a lot of people who frequent tls) is that no school is worth sticker with the exception of maybe Yale. Unless of course your parents are billionaires or you win the lottery or whatever. The fact that you admit you don't think you maxed out your lsat and that you are feeling like going to NYU for sticker may be a bad idea means retaking or waiting or picking a cheaper option may be a very good choice. Fwiw if you got into NYU you should be able to get a lower t14 for very cheap and still meet your career goal.

Is your choice NYU at sticker or sit out? Did you apply to lower t14s? Georgetown,Berkely,Duke,Cornell etc.?

I'm not sure practicing in Louisiana will be detrimental to moving later in life, but Tulane will severely limit your career in terms of location. (i.e. if you go to Tulane, bank on being in Louisiana) As someone who hails from the boot, if you aren't 100% ok living in Lousiana the rest of your career, don't go to Tulane. Not to say it would be impossible to move somewhere else, but you will have a big uphill battle.

I have many personal anecdotes that support the stance that they only look at highest score. My friend's 155(first lsat) and 168(second lsat) and multiple t14 acceptances with $ are clear support for that.

Having seconds thoughts about attending law school is fine. Attending law school because you like reading and writing is not fine.

I didn't either. Just put your name,the label "personal statement", and your lsac number in the header and you'll be fine.

Realistically this is a completely personal choice. My opinion on visits is that you shouldn't visit a school until you have been admitted.(unless you are visiting to try to get off a waitlist or interview etc). The reason for me is two-fold. First, you dont want to go visit a school and end up loving it only to not get admitted. Second, once admitted, they give you the royal treatment when you tour.lol But to be honest, if you haven't even taken the LSAT yet I think you are way ahead of yourself by trying to visit possible schools already. Sure, walking around and viewing the campus of a local school or whatever is one thing. But trying to actually visit schools before having even taken the LSAT and therefore having a realistic perspective on your likelihood of getting in/going to that school is definitely not recommended by me. Focus on nailing the LSAT and then let the process carry on from there.

I took nothing but 5 section pts. I don't really see a benefit to taking 4 section tests as the real deal is always 5 section. You may as well get your brain ready for the timing and endurance.

@ GPA is hardly accounted for . I mean unless its just horrible (2.2-@.9) .... even then with 170+ its just irrelevant with gpa you will get into third of the T20....

This is pretty much 100% false. GPA is considered and is relevant no matter what LSAT score you have. Someone on TLS was posting last week with a 178 or 179 and they got denied to quite a few top 20 schools because their GPA was bad.

As a side note, you are implying as though you will just knock out a 170+ like its no big deal with "hard work." A lot of people on this forum studied for over a year and still have not broken 170.

This shouldn't even be a question imo. If you can't even bring yourself to take the LSAT seriously up to now, what makes you think you are going to be able to take law school seriously and finish top 10%? Even then that's by no means a rock solid transfer to a top 20 school. And God forbid you got stuck at Southwestern where the employment rate is around 30%, you would basically be giving yourself a 60% chance of being unemployed with a bunch of debt. Retake the lsat and take it seriously. It is the most important test you will have taken to this point towards your legal career. I adamantly disagree with the above poster who said "both are Good options," one is a horrible option and the other should be the ONLY option. Good luck.

Skipping half of the questions in the middle is a recipe for a bubbling error imo.

Supposedly they have been making the group interviewees(is that a word?lol) act as a mock admissions committee and talk about mock candidates and give their reasons for admission or denial. It's more of talking to the other interviewees than anything else from what people who have done it recently have said.

To be brutally honest you have very little chance of getting a full ride from vandy if your gpa isnt at or above their median regardless of your lsat score. Even then its not easy to get them to give you a lot of money.

Wustl moves ahead of vandy and Alabama cracks top 20 are my predictions. Also cornell goes up to 11 or 12.

Yale/Stanford: the extra stuff matters a bit more than any other schools. At least that's the reputation they have.

The other 3 of the top 5 is primarily a numbers game.