Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.4K All Categories
- 28K LSAT
- 17K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 12 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.1K Study Groups
- 111 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 25 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 636 Technical Problems
- 285 Off-topic
Related Discussions
Excessive Takes
newapjuice
Free Trial Member
I've taken the LSAT three times and have one cancel. I scored in the 94th percentile on my highest take.
Comments
I think with some work on RC you can definitely score in 170's in Feb. I believe the universities are only taking a look at your highest LSAT scores, so that should be fine. The 167 is a big improvement and show the university you are capable of this and at least its an upward trend overall.
If you are scoring in practice test your goal score, you are ready for this test and I think you should take in Feb. But if you are not scoring in 170s and scoring higher on average in RC then I think you should wait to take it again.
Getting to a 167 is obviously an incredible growth over both your diagnostic and your earlier scores. Congratulations on that.
It is difficult to know how a retake will be interpreted based on others results since I doubt very many people have ever retaken so many times with such significant growth. Therefore I think we are going to have to reason it out.
The first thing is that if schools just take the highest score and you think you can still do better you should retake and the earlier scores don't matter.
If schools consider the average in addition to the highest score, I think it is actually even clearer that you should retake. You have a bunch of low scores and one high scores. There is an argument to be made that you should retake to prove it was not a fluke(assuming your practice tests indicate that it was not).
Finally, they could evaluate the highest score byt penalize retaking in some way. If they do this you would have to weigh the chance of getting a higher score against the certainty of a retake penalty. It would be unclear whether you should retake. Additionally, your present number of retakes would probably already doom you.
I imagine reality is somewhere between the first two scenarios and closest to the first one. They almost exclusively look at the highest score at most schools because that is all that matters for their ranking, but also may want to be convinced that you can actually compete at the law school and therefore may pay a slight degree of attention to your average which LSAC says is most predictive of law school performance. Just as each of these cases individually makes it worth retaking if you think you can score better, so does the real situation if it is a combination of the two.
If your lost and seeking motivation to study for the retake, consider why you are applying to law school. It obviously is a pretty strong motivator that goes beyond financial gain.
Was the 120 diagnostic a concerted effort or did you walk out of the exam?
Why'd you leave PE to do securities? People usually lateral the other way? Curious because I work at a BB myself. Also, why not business school?
But yeah, you should definitely retake! Like others have said, most schools only care about your highest score. Keep going until you get that 170+
Playing a little devil's advocate but I recall reading a post from Spivey saying that retaking 5+ times may indicate poor judgement and may raise red flags. Regardless, I would retake if you are confident. You should keep in mind that RC is hardest to improve on and by your breakdown, it seems like the section that could use the most improvement. Even if you have to delay a cycle, you should take your time to improve on that section
@"Alex Divine" PE I was on the transactional end so I wasn't given much chance to work directly with LPs or raise capital. I held a minority position in the firm primarily because my brother was the principal.
Commercial assets were restricted to the hospitality sector.
We would purchase commercial real estate that went to into foreclosure. Collateralized property never usually covered the lender's judgement so we would secure the rights to collect from the lender and through legal proceedings have the PGs satisfy the deficiency. Repositioning the property wasn't an issue but litigation strategy would bleed our funds.
So what underwriting gives me is a chance to advise the issuer how raise capital through debt/equity securities which is something I never did in PE. Don't get me wrong, PE I learned a lot from leveraging state programs to cover a fraction of development costs to bond financing but it wasn't for me. Hope that makes sense.
I'm thinking about business school after I get my JD. I think JD would help me more than a MBA. I don't see a point of a MBA if it's not from the top schools. I was recruited on my experience and knowledge alone.
As for everyone else, first thank you for your help. I've taken two PTs after the December exam and scored 177 and 173 which were fresh takes. It's more so for me about how another take would look than if I can actually hit 170. I'm quite sure I can if i consistently score in the mid-high 170s.
@goingfor99th it was mix a of both. Tried initially and kind of gave up after I couldn't set up the second LG game. but I doubt my diagnostic would have been higher than a 140 had I tried lol. The 167 was tough work for me. I did hundreds of logic games and LR sections to score that. RC I sort of neglected as I felt I would make marginal gains. I've recently started drill RC so that's why I was able to score in the 170s
140s to 167 is impressive in its own right. You're doing just fine. Keep working hard and score higher next time.
Let's say you take again and get a 173... Harvard/Yale/Stanford might ding you for the 7 takes, but everyone else will probably still take you, assuming the rest of your application is good.
Ok! Sounds like you have amazing softs then. I agree that an MBA probably isn't worth it unless it's from an M7.
I'm sure you'll end up at a great law school. Good luck!
It sounds like you can get a sweet job on your experiences alone. I would apply to law schools and go to one where I get a full ride. Your experiences plus a JD will put you in a nice spot.
@"Stevie C" I spoke with HLS admissions Thursday and they just stated they'll look at the highest if can provide a compelling enough reason. I've already applied to HLS and they'll hold my app until the Feb. take. If I can bump my score to around 175, I think I may have a shot. Otherwise, it's Penn Law or Georgetown.
@swhitt10 I don't need a full-ride. Just need a top school. I can cover almost all the debt tbh.
@westcoastbestcoast read that a while ago too. I think you'll be primarily judged on the narrative you tell in your addenda. It's though to justify so many takes but for me I couldn't work 60+ hours and study effectively. Hence, I should have never taken it in the first place but it's already done. I can't change it. I'll just have to convey to admissions that my last take is a more accurate representation of my abilities.