<p>BDMike, I would be interested in applying early to UMich but I can't b/c N'Western is on the quarter system and UMich early decision ppl have to start in May (I would still be in school). Hypothetically if I were to graduate a quarter early from N'western and apply early to UMich, how much would that help me there?</p>
<p>Marny and Icy, thanks for your posts, you really made me feel better after a somewhat ****ty day :D</p>
<p>Applying ED seems to be a big boost this year. I've seen a # of kids who got accepted to Michigan and Penn and there stats were a bit on the low side. (meaning they were at the low end of the 25%-75% scores--
yeah- I read LSD too.)
So ED may give you a bit of a boost.
It definitely may be worth your while to graduate a quarter early (summer school or take a heavier semester load if possible) if that allows you to apply ED to Mich.
Your stats are really very close to the "acceptance zone"- but you just need something to push you over. An ED application to U Mich may just do it!</p>
<p>Here's the discussion I promised.</p>
<p>From what I can see, marny's analysis of Michigan sounds spot-on; ED might well make a difference there. Combined with good essays, a strong personal statement that emphasizes your strengths, I think that just might push you over. I hesitate to endorse a plan as relatively serious as graduating early, but it might well do the trick. If it doesn't do the trick, though, would you regret it? I am having trouble excluding URM status from the graph, so there may be less flexibility than I think -- but I'm not sure.</p>
<p>You're also not too far from Northwestern; if you tell us more about your LSAT testing history (practices, etc.) we might well recommend that you try again. Three points could make the difference there -- but Northwestern also loves work experience, so it's hard to say one way or the other.</p>
<p>While you're close to the cutoff, Georgetown appears just too numbers-obsessed to predict any movement from an essay or experience. One more point seems to give you a 50/50 chance -- and good essays would probably put you into the good 50 -- but as is, they seem to be working with a pretty firm cutoff.</p>
<p>Cal (Berkeley) is hard to say, because they work with the loosest cutoffs. Their reputation is famous for emphasizing very high GPAs, and the graphs on LSN seem to loosely confirm that. Again, however, 166 seems to be operating as a pretty firm cutoff -- but you could go up to 170 and I would still have no idea what to say.</p>
<p>Penn is suffering from a frightening lack of data, but they seem to be quite a reach as well.</p>
<p>Ok, here's my testing history as best as I remember it:</p>
<p>Took a diagnostic from a Kaplan book (not a real LSAT, I'm guessing). Got a 164.</p>
<p>Then signed up for an online Princeton Review course, which proved to be not so great. They gave me 6 practice tests which were real LSATs. Scores: 161, 169, 161, 169,170, 168 (I just looked these up on my PR online score chart, sorry for the slightly mistaken info earlier). I then took the only prep test that LSAC sent me in time for the Feb. LSAT (Prep test 53, ironically the one that was on backorder), and I got a 166. Should have taken that as an omen.</p>
<p>I should note that I was not as diligent as I should have been about studying, which is why I think I can do better. The PS LGB really cleared things up for me but unfortunately I only bought it a month before the test and didn't have time to go over it twice. But I was doing really well on all the games sets in it (usually getting 4 or 5 out of 5 right on a game, with the exception of some of the really hard hybrids). As far as reading comp and LR, I was usually missing 1 question per section, sometimes 2 on LR. </p>
<p>Thanks for taking the time to read this... I really appreciate it.</p>
<p>That strikes me as an odd pattern and I'm not quite sure what to make of it. I suspect it means you haven't maxed out on studying. Your diagnostic should be improveable by at least a few points -- certainly not just two. (Test prep companies are notorious for making diagnostics especially hard, not easy, so that you feel like you made an especially big improvement.)</p>
<p>I would study hard -- really push it this time -- and if you can start getting practice scores up in the 170s consistently, retake the thing. A diagnostic of 164 should mean you're at least capable of getting into the 170s. Even a few points can really change the dynamic of the application process.</p>
<p>And, in addition to course material, use this:
Amazon.com:</a> 10 More Actual, Official LSAT PrepTests (Lsat Series) (Lsat Series): Law School Admission Council: Books</p>
<p>Actual LSATs aren't any better than fake ones if they're old.</p>
<p>Okay, I think I'll go ahead and buy that one and the next one, which should cover tests 19-38. That, combined with the other 4 I already have (49-52) should be good if I do one every few days leading up to June. It works out nicely because all the tests I already took with the PR course were in the 40s so I won't have taken any of those yet.</p>
<p>Right now I think I'll concentrate on studying for June. My one fear is that I'll do worse! But hopefully I'll be able to get enough of a sense for that that I can cancel if need be.</p>
<p>Thanks for all the advice!</p>
<p>I wouldn't just blindly take tests. I would use a course book -- or even a course? -- to make sure of it.</p>
<p>As one sports icon commented: practice doesn't make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect.</p>
<p>So make sure you're doing it right before you go reinforcing anything.</p>
<p>Haha, okay. The thing is, I don't know if I can get my parents to pay another $1000 for a course. Do you think if I buy the PS LR bible, study with that as well as going over the LGB another 2 or 3 times will do the trick? </p>
<p>I also plan on buying the lsac superprep book-- the one with the 3 february tests and explanations.</p>
<p>Also, there's another lsat discussion forum (on law school discussion dot com) where there's sort of a study group -- they've planned out a schedule for taking tests and then discussing them as a group. The people leading the group appear to be LSAT tutors. Of course on the internet you can never be sure...</p>
<p>I don't know very much about specific LSAT prep methods. I never took a course and have no idea whether they're worth it.</p>
<p>I do know that there's no way to guarantee an improvement -- that it will depend largely on you: both things you can change (working harder) and things you can't. I never used any "Bibles" and can't attest to their usefulness.</p>
<p>What I do know is that diagnostics are usually unfairly hard and that a ten-to-fifteen point improvement isn't unreasonable. (Of course, you should not expect a fifteen point gain, but four to eight doesn't seem so far-fetched.) How most students get these gains, I don't really know.</p>
<p>All right, fair enough :) The courses don't start til April and I believe I can register up until middle of March, so if I am showing improvement by then with the bibles (I feel so silly every time I call them that) and by going over all my mistakes, I'll just continue on on my own; otherwise I'll have to figure out a way to convince my family to pay for a course. Or maybe by then I'll have come to terms with not going to a T14. Heh. </p>
<p>But yeah... it's late, my responses have gotten progressively less coherent and I'm sure you're tired of them. Thanks x a million.</p>
<p>I haven't read through the whole thread, but I'm sending a PM your way.</p>
<p>I looked at the law school numbers website referenced by another poster. The LSAT numbers are inflated. This site is sponsored by LSAT prep courses and offers incomplete data by anonymous posters. Of course great LSAT scores will look inadequate on this other website as their business is LSAT prep. The GPAs look realistic, and quite low, so as to encourage hopeful law school applicants that a LSAT prep review course will work wonders for an applicant from any no-name college/university with very average GPAs regardless of major.</p>
<p>... so you're alleging that LSN is part of some test-prep conspiracy?</p>
<p>It is of course an anonymous site and subject to selection bias. However, the predictions you get from it are not that far off from using LSAC's probability generator (they're a little more pessimistic in general) and they're certainly not very far off from an analysis of US News's 25th percentiles -- both of which are also cited above.</p>
<p>Again -- I'm embedded in the admissions process myself and have seen many, many students go through it in just the past couple of years. I have also referenced three sources of data -- two of them official -- and have made clear what the limitations of each of them are, while using each to cross-corroborate the others.</p>
<p>I stand by my assessment.</p>
<p>bluedevilmike: My posts are not intended to be a challenge to your expertise or authority. Your use of the word "conspiracy" says a lot about you. The website you referenced has data that conflicts with the figures released by the law schools. If you can't recognize that website as a marketer of LSAT prep, then you are just kidding yourself because you want easy, absolute answers--or perhaps you want to market test prep. Either way, the last thing that law school teaches is absolute answers--that is more the bailiwick of paralegal courses and undergraduate business law courses. What you refer to as a "conspiracy", I call "advertising". I do, however, think that the website that you referenced is misleading in an attempt to attract customers to its LSAT prep review business.</p>
<p>Again, I think I have been doing anything but giving simple, easy answers. Post #23 discusses a variety of contingencies and unpredictable factors.</p>
<p>Lawschoolnumbers -- as I have repeatedly mentioned already -- is a self-selected website and therefore is not an accurate representation of the overall applicant pool. The question is: is it an accurate representation of a given applicant's chances once the numbers are known? I maintain that it is, and it gives very similar predictions to LSAC's probability generator (where the OP's odds at Michigan are about 30%) as well as US News (where the OP's LSAT is below the 25th percentile).</p>
<p>I am not affiliated with any test prep companies and have in fact never so much as purchased an LSAT prep product. You'll notice the OP asked me several questions on the subject of preparation and I deferred based on my utter and complete lack of knowledge on the subject.</p>
<p>icy9ff8- I think bluedevilmike has correctly expressed my opinion on this matter, but I wanted to say that you are the one looking for easy answers here. LSAT prep 101: simply because a website/organization/company (like law school numbers) is sponsored by an advertiser does not mean that the website/organization/company is overly influenced by said advertiser. There are questions on the lsat that will challenge this thinking, often causing unsuspecting lsat-takers to choose the answer that implicates the website/organization/company.</p>
<p>This is not to say that a website/organization/company (like law school numbers) could not be influenced by an advertiser. Still, it seems more reasonable to believe that the test prep companies are advertising on LSN because there are a number of potential clients and LSN is inflated because people with higher stats are attracted to that kind of website. If you need further evidence of the latter example, look no further than college confidential and other law school related discussion boards. People who post on these sites, in general, have better stats than the average person applying to law school.</p>
<p>ok- i'll characterize myself as an impartial 3rd party. I'm a mom whose kid got a 167 LSAT.
Trust me- I read LSD and follow the posts of certain kids whose #'s are similar to my own kid.<br>
as I said earlier- The chances of kids getting into a T-14 with an LSAT score between 166-168 is "iffy" at best. Of course- the higher the gpa, the better chance the kid has.<br>
There have been many kids on LSD.org who have gotten 166 and good GPA's and as of now they have been deferred or waitlisted at T-14 schools. (A few ED kids have been successful with Penn and Mich.) These 166 LSAT kids may get an acceptance later on this admission season- but the T-14's doors are not wide open to them as of now.<br>
There is even a whole thread on lsd for kids who got 166 LSAT as it seems to be a make of break score. Even the 167 score seems more promising as Georgetown seems relunctant to dip below the top 5 % LSAT score (167) based on what I have read on LSD and the 167 kids seem more successful with Georgetown and Cornell acceptance with gpa's of 3.7 +. (luckily that works for my kid- but we will see as she is not applying yet)
Lily seems to be a fine candidate and has many things going for her- (Northwestern- speaks several languages)- but as she has said- she may not have studied sufficiently to reach her potential on this exam. So she really needs to decide whether it is worthwhile for her to take the exam a second time.
In comparison- my own d- felt she did the best she could and is sticking to her score.<br>
I do agree that law school numbers is a self selected group and probably only the more "obsessed" with law school admissions- goes to these boards (myself included).<br>
but the reality is that an LSAT of 166-168 is not a guarantee to an admission to a T-14 Law school. And then it is up to the applicant to decide whether to chance the test a 2nd time or possibly accept an admission outside the T-14 schools.
It is probably easier for the kid with a 162 to make the decision- they KNOW they have to try a 2nd time. For those kids who did a bit better on the exam, they may have a harder time making a decision whether to take the LSAT again.
-sort of sounds like playing black jack. Do you hold the cards you have in your hand- or do you try to improve your odds by taking another card??. (I think I got the right card game analogy)</p>
<p>In search of more corroboration, I've been browsing through LSAC's official guide. Several of the schools listed do not provide applicant grids, and even those that do use EXTREMELY unspecific grids, including 5 LSAT points and .25 GPA points in any given square. It's simply not true that a 165, 3.75 should be looking in the same box as a 169, 4.0. And yet that's the best data we're given.</p>
<p>Just as an example, UCLA: <a href="http://officialguide.lsac.org/SearchResults/SchoolPage_PDFs/LSAC_LawSchoolDescription/LSAC4837.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://officialguide.lsac.org/SearchResults/SchoolPage_PDFs/LSAC_LawSchoolDescription/LSAC4837.pdf</a></p>
<p>You can see that the OP's odds are somewhere between 10%, 40%, and 72%. Where in that range? No way to know.</p>
<p>What you CAN see, however, is how steep the dropoffs are. A candidate with a 3.75+: a 165-169 gives him/her 72% odds. A candidate with a 160-164? 8.5%.</p>
<p>In fact, just reading down that leftmost column, you get 96.7%, 98.5%. Then you're below their 75th percentile, and you get 71.9%. Then you're below their 25th percentile, and you get 8.5%, 7.2%, and then a whole bunch of 0%.</p>
<p>Well, you are all perfect candidates for LSAT review courses. This thread has become so silly that a response is unwarranted. If you wish to believe a test review advertising website as the authority on law school admissions, then that is fine. If you want to believe that law school admissions is almost entirely LSAT scores, you are not being realistic.</p>
<p>As we've pointed out several times:</p>
<p>1.) Marny is not a prospective law student and I'm a little late to be retaking my LSAT.</p>
<p>2.) LSN is hardly the only source we have for our discussion; we've also used LSAC's Data Search, the LSAC official guide, and US News's percentile distributions. All four sources line up pretty well.</p>
<p>3.) That's not a test review advertising website; it is a website which happens to sell advertising to test prep companies -- just as collegeconfidential does as well. That's an important distinction.</p>
<p>4.) We have repeatedly said -- over and over again, constantly, from the very beginning -- that the process is NOT "almost entirely" LSAT scores. You are assigning us a straw man. What we have said is that numbers (including GPA) form a dominant part of the process, but that in many situations, soft factors like the OP's international fluency and a possible Early Decision application might make the difference, but that it is hard to say precisely.</p>