Should I retake a 172

ilovemydog17

Hi, I am so grateful and happy to have gotten a 172 on sept test, 7sage I owe u my life. That being said, I am still be encouraged by people to take the October test bc I am already signed up, but I am not sure if I will do better than a 172. My august LSAT was a 161, so I am worried if I get like around a 168 or something (my pt average is a 169) than my 172 will look more like a fluke to schools, especially to t14s. I know some say that they only look at the highest score but is there no way the other scores could be a factor?

My highest ever pt score is a 175 but other than that I am consistently scoring between 171-168, mostly getting 170s.

I really would appreciate people's thoughts, thank you for your time!

Steven_B-1

Are you completely opposed to retaking in November? That way you would give yourself enough time to work on your weaknesses and reduce the chances of scoring lower than 172.

Cant Get Right

I retested a 170, but my PT average was 176 at the time of the retest. I think that was critical. If you can get your PT average up to mid-170’s+, then go for it. As it is, though, it looks like you maxed out your current score range. Very little reason to expect improvement unless you change your range in practice first. So I’d keep studying to see if you can change your standing, but I would withdraw if I didn’t see improvement. A lower score is unlikely to hurt you, but I just don’t see a reason to test without a reasonably grounded expectation to improve.

And so you know, law schools don’t care about the rigor of your ug. So congrats on a stellar, universally-above-median gpa without any need to qualify!

Arete_Southbay

It will be the biggest regret of your entire life.

mexlyott

You may already be aware of this, but LSAC now offers a Score Preview option for all test takers (not just first-time test takers). So you could cancel your 3rd score if it's lower than 172, although you may still worry about admissions officers assuming that you canceled your 3rd score because you scored lower than 172. But at least they wouldn't know whether you canceled it because it was a 171 or a lower score in the 160s.
https://www.lsac.org/lsat/lsat-scoring/lsat-score-preview

slxyzvvv-1

@"Cant Get Right" said:
I retested a 170, but my PT average was 176 at the time of the retest. I think that was critical. If you can get your PT average up to mid-170’s+, then go for it. As it is, though, it looks like you maxed out your current score range. Very little reason to expect improvement unless you change your range in practice first. So I’d keep studying to see if you can change your standing, but I would withdraw if I didn’t see improvement. A lower score is unlikely to hurt you, but I just don’t see a reason to test without a reasonably grounded expectation to improve.

And so you know, law schools don’t care about the rigor of your ug. So congrats on a stellar, universally-above-median gpa without any need to qualify!

May I ask how did it go for you? I'm currently PTing in a score higher than my last one, but with large fluctuations; there're times where I score significant lower than my last test. I'm retaking in October but feel really unsure whether I could place my hope in getting a better score.

WhatIsLife

@Arete_Southbay said:
It will be the biggest regret of your entire life.

lol this is a bit extreme don't you think?

Cant Get Right

@"slxyzvvv-1" said:

@"Cant Get Right" said:
I retested a 170, but my PT average was 176 at the time of the retest. I think that was critical. If you can get your PT average up to mid-170’s+, then go for it. As it is, though, it looks like you maxed out your current score range. Very little reason to expect improvement unless you change your range in practice first. So I’d keep studying to see if you can change your standing, but I would withdraw if I didn’t see improvement. A lower score is unlikely to hurt you, but I just don’t see a reason to test without a reasonably grounded expectation to improve.

And so you know, law schools don’t care about the rigor of your ug. So congrats on a stellar, universally-above-median gpa without any need to qualify!

May I ask how did it go for you? I'm currently PTing in a score higher than my last one, but with large fluctuations; there're times where I score significant lower than my last test. I'm retaking in October but feel really unsure whether I could place my hope in getting a better score.

It went well, I scored a 176 official. Your fluctuations are an issue you want to address. My 176 PT average was inside a very tight range of +/-2. I also diagnosed and corrected a lot of weaknesses, big and small, between my official 170 and 176. So that's another factor to consider. What is different between now and then? I had a lot of specific answers to that question, so I wasn't just hoping to score better. I had specific, tangible reasons to expect better. A lot of times large score fluctuations are the result of haphazard strategy, procedure, and time management. If these aren't things you've actively studied and addressed, a bit of work on that might be your best way to tighten up your range.

slxyzvvv-1

@"Cant Get Right" said:

@"slxyzvvv-1" said:

@"Cant Get Right" said:
I retested a 170, but my PT average was 176 at the time of the retest. I think that was critical. If you can get your PT average up to mid-170’s+, then go for it. As it is, though, it looks like you maxed out your current score range. Very little reason to expect improvement unless you change your range in practice first. So I’d keep studying to see if you can change your standing, but I would withdraw if I didn’t see improvement. A lower score is unlikely to hurt you, but I just don’t see a reason to test without a reasonably grounded expectation to improve.

And so you know, law schools don’t care about the rigor of your ug. So congrats on a stellar, universally-above-median gpa without any need to qualify!

May I ask how did it go for you? I'm currently PTing in a score higher than my last one, but with large fluctuations; there're times where I score significant lower than my last test. I'm retaking in October but feel really unsure whether I could place my hope in getting a better score.

It went well, I scored a 176 official. Your fluctuations are an issue you want to address. My 176 PT average was inside a very tight range of +/-2. I also diagnosed and corrected a lot of weaknesses, big and small, between my official 170 and 176. So that's another factor to consider. What is different between now and then? I had a lot of specific answers to that question, so I wasn't just hoping to score better. I had specific, tangible reasons to expect better. A lot of times large score fluctuations are the result of haphazard strategy, procedure, and time management. If these aren't things you've actively studied and addressed, a bit of work on that might be your best way to tighten up your range.

My score fluctuations mostly depend luck... like whether the passages in RC happen to make sense to me, or whether I happen to spot the subtle flaws in LRs. I feel like those things rly ain't within my control that's why I'm all freaked out. My worst score could go down to 166, with one RC passage almost all wrong.

Cant Get Right

@"slxyzvvv-1" said:

My score fluctuations mostly depend luck... like whether the passages in RC happen to make sense to me, or whether I happen to spot the subtle flaws in LRs. I feel like those things rly ain't within my control that's why I'm all freaked out. My worst score could go down to 166, with one RC passage almost all wrong.

I don't have much use for luck, either good or bad. RC passages don't happen to make sense or not. I make sense of them or I don't. That is a matter of preparation. I never happen to spot subtle flaws in LR. I spot them because I have trained tirelessly to be able do so.

I actually missed a question with a student yesterday because I didn't see the flaw. I don't like knowing the answer upfront or else I inevitably will work my reasoning backwards, so it happens every now and then. But I didn't just happen to miss it. I missed it because I wasn't prepared. I'd never encountered an argument quite like it. It was an inventive and cleverly packaged question. Simply put, I failed.

But that's not at all out of my control. So afterwards, I did the work and I cracked it. I figured out the nuance and subtlety. I studied how the argument had been crafted to disguise the critical relationship and how it had successfully led my reasoning astray. In hindsight, it feels like such an obvious solution and a really amateur mistake. But it only feels that way because I've now done the work. The next time I encounter something like it, I will spot the flaw and it will not have anything to do with luck.

I do not accept explanations for my performance which are not actionable. Luck cannot be improved. It is out of my hands, there is nothing I can do about it. If there's nothing I can do, then I am a passive player in my own endeavors. That is untenable. So I find better explanations--explanations that leave me in charge. Those better explanations always boil down to the same thing: Failure. Failure is painful, but at least it is the result of my control. And as long as I'm in control, I can change my outcomes. And as long as I can change my outcomes, I have work to do.

snowcap007

You can also buy score preview for October and cancel your score if you are unsatisfied. That being said, 172 is an amazing score, which will allow you to get aid and admission at many great schools. Good luck this cycle, and great work!!

slxyzvvv-1

@"Cant Get Right" said:

@"slxyzvvv-1" said:

My score fluctuations mostly depend luck... like whether the passages in RC happen to make sense to me, or whether I happen to spot the subtle flaws in LRs. I feel like those things rly ain't within my control that's why I'm all freaked out. My worst score could go down to 166, with one RC passage almost all wrong.

I don't have much use for luck, either good or bad. RC passages don't happen to make sense or not. I make sense of them or I don't. That is a matter of preparation. I never happen to spot subtle flaws in LR. I spot them because I have trained tirelessly to be able do so.

I actually missed a question with a student yesterday because I didn't see the flaw. I don't like knowing the answer upfront or else I inevitably will work my reasoning backwards, so it happens every now and then. But I didn't just happen to miss it. I missed it because I wasn't prepared. I'd never encountered an argument quite like it. It was an inventive and cleverly packaged question. Simply put, I failed.

But that's not at all out of my control. So afterwards, I did the work and I cracked it. I figured out the nuance and subtlety. I studied how the argument had been crafted to disguise the critical relationship and how it had successfully led my reasoning astray. In hindsight, it feels like such an obvious solution and a really amateur mistake. But it only feels that way because I've now done the work. The next time I encounter something like it, I will spot the flaw and it will not have anything to do with luck.

I do not accept explanations for my performance which are not actionable. Luck cannot be improved. It is out of my hands, there is nothing I can do about it. If there's nothing I can do, then I am a passive player in my own endeavors. That is untenable. So I find better explanations--explanations that leave me in charge. Those better explanations always boil down to the same thing: Failure. Failure is painful, but at least it is the result of my control. And as long as I'm in control, I can change my outcomes. And as long as I can change my outcomes, I have work to do.

Thanks that's rly insightful. I do look at the questions I got wrong in the way you suggested, and every time I thought if I encounter something like this next time I'm gonna nail it. Well it worked pretty fine for older PTs. When I got to 80+ PTs, it just seems there's a lot more unpredictability and subtlety especially for LR, and I always get questions wrong for new reasons. The worst part is there's an increasing proportion of wrong questions for which I couldn't rly make sense of the right answer. This makes it extra hard to track down the reasoning pattern of the test writers and extra hard to rly gain control over my performance.

ilovemydog17

I want to add an update to this, I ended up deciding not to retake and I am really happy with this decision because it gave me so much more time to start working on my essays and getting to a place where I can apply by November, thanks everyone for the help!