| Topic Name: |
lsat average |
| Message Name: |
i disagree; WORK HARD |
| Date Posted: |
09/01/2001 |
| In Reply To: |
I think that's being very hard on yourself. Tons and tons of wonderful lawyers (judges and professors) come out of schools that are not top three or even top ten.
I've noticed a lot of people have unrealistic expectations about their LSAT. I don't know anyone who scored as well on the real thing as they did on their practice. (e.g., I was running 175s on practices and took the real thing and got a 168.)
You can retake it and hope for the best, but if it doesn't move much (traditionally I hear more than 5 points, at least) it won't matter much to the admissions people.
You might want to consider that while a 160 is a decent score, you may not belong/be happy at Harvard. LSATs are traditionally a VERY good indicator of bar passage and grades in law school (which is why they use it). If you manage to get yourself in to one of those schools at the very top, your competition will all be just as smart if not smarter - if you go to a school without those numbers you might find it easier to be at the top of your class.
If your heart is set on Yale, Stanford or Harvard, though, maybe you should think about why you want to go to law school. If you love the law and are wanting to practice it, there's literally one hundred other schools that can well-prepare you (and if you do well at them, few, if any doors will be closed to you); and I can almost guarantee you will do well.
If you just want to make a lot of money go get an MBA. Most people I meet who went to law school just to make buck ended up complaining about being a lawyer and miserable.
Incidentally, I think your chances based on a 160 of getting into a top ten school are extremely low unless you've also got a PhD in astrophysics and ran track in the Olympics. Check out some top 50 schools...but my primary advice is if you aren't desparate to be a lawyer/practice law, don't go to law school.
|
| Message: |
I think JPML's advice is a bit short-sighted to say the least. The LSAT is a means from which schools use to weed out applicants. It has little correlation with law school success.
Believe me, I have been on the admissions staff of many schools, and test scores made our jobs a lot easier. You could literally discard thousands of applications based on this stat alone.
In addition, GPA is subjective. A 4.0 in sociology is far easier to attain than 4.0 in engineering or business. Therefore, how can we ascertain who has the mental ability to grasp law school material. Well that's the official reason anyway. :-)
Furthermore, we admissions staff are aware that it is difficult task to score well on the LSAT. We are aware that some applicants are gifted test takers. However, the majority simply worked incredibly hard and sacrificed their time to perform well on the exam.. Someone with that type of determination is who we wanted at our school.
I believe you can prepare for the LSAT as I had done. You may not intially have the logical skills to perform well. However, you can develop those skills with practice. It's just that it requires an incredible and arguably unrealistic preparation time.
However, each year, I have associates and former colleagues admit they put in a Navy Seal effort toward studying for the LSAT.
Realize too that it's not vogue to say you studied a lot. Everyone wants to be a genius who did little and scored well. Some can get by with 3 weeks worth of study, the majortiy cannot.
p.s. I scored a 175 and graduated from a top 5 school.
|
|
