Jump to content
viccymoney

LSAT 156 & 3.0 GPA... help?

Recommended Posts

I scored a 156 on the July LSAT and I'm seriously considering canceling my score. My poor GPA doesn't help my situation either. I consistently scored between 152-162 on PT's.

My list of schools I'd like to get into goes something like this;

McGill, Calgary, Queens, Dalhousie, Windsor and then Western.

Any input, advice or general help would be amazing for me as I'm struggling with this decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd cancel if I were you, especially because of your GPA. I have a GPA that is on the lower side as well and I basically think anything below 165 is useless to me. I'm aiming for 169+. But if you have a school that you think will accept a 3.0 and 156 then of course don't cancel. But if you don't know of any school that will accept that (I don't know if there are any), then just cancel it and get the free retake. Why waste money on keeping a score that's worthless?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'd cancel. Unless your L2 is significantly higher than your cGPA, you need a higher LSAT score to stand a chance at most of the schools on your list. 

Edited by Tagger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Is the July LSAT unique? Normally if you choose to cancel, it is done in advance of seeing your score.

Edited by Psychometronic
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Psychometronic said:

Is the July LSAT unique? Normally if you choose to cancel, it is done in advance of seeing your score.

Yes, it's the first time they released a digital lsat, so lsac decided that you can cancel your score within 2 weeks after receiving it which results in the test taker being refunded a free test take for the next test they book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got a 154 and I have a 3.9 GPA. Planning to apply to my dream school (U of Calgary) and I will be cancelling since most of my PTs are above 154. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, LebronMcDavid said:

I got a 154 and I have a 3.9 GPA. Planning to apply to my dream school (U of Calgary) and I will be cancelling since most of my PTs are above 154. 

I think your situation is quite different from OP

Edited by Luckycharm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Its mostly hyperbole for the pace of it part, I don't really see myself holding a tin can and a sign that reads "Will review contracts for Food".  There is nothing wrong of course with teaching fundamental skills. Just borrowing a page from say, physics. They teach fundamental theories and its very important to. But its laterally supplanted with learning how to use sophisticated machinery, and now supplanted with learning how to design and program simulation models. We spend like, an hour a week learning to use Westlaw and Quicklaw which are the tools of yesterday. We learn nothing about how these tools are going to operate. But yes, case summaries have not changed. It literally went unchanged for over a decade. Not for criminal law obviously, but the summaries I looked at were virtually identical to mine in teaching ratios and so-on with the same cases used.  Sorry I seem very bitter and so-on, but I am just kind of frustrated with how archaic law school looks to be entering my second year. 
    • Thanks for taking the time to answer my previous question. I may be applying this cycle and have a question with regards to the Sketch part of the application. When I previously applied to Law School I added every little volunteer/extracurricular from the time I entered University. For simplicity purposes, I wanted to retain only the last 3-4 years of relevant experience. Would this be a problem for an individual that had more sketch items in a previous application 1-2 years ago? For example some activities are not included at all whereas they were on a previous application?  And just for the sake of knowing I guess, would you have access to and look back at a previous application if you were assessing a candidate?  
    • No, I think the bias is good because it makes whiny conservatives like you fill your diaper. Your first thought on hearing the Prime Minister did something racist was run to bump an old thread to try and score points for your “team”, because to you the racism isn’t really the issue, it’s just an opportunity to poke a lib in the eye.
    • I don't think that people are necessarily laughing at the essence of what you are saying.  What you are saying isn't completely crazy.  The pace at which you are suggesting this will all happen is likely, in part, what they are doubting.  The reactions may also be partly attributed to the fact that you haven't (I don't think?) actually practiced law at this point. I just don't think the legal profession will be completely revolutionized as imminently as your comments suggest.  While I (and probably others) can appreciate arguments that computers will replace certain functions currently done by humans and that some of Ryerson's tech-forward training could be helpful (if well executed), I think it will take time to get there.  While I do appreciate the need for lawyers to have more technical skills and to better integrate technology into law schools (whatever that means...I'm old), I don't understand how this translates to what seems to be your critique of the substance of law school (i.e. what is taught not the way it is taught).  I do think that law school, especially 1L, should continue to include the case reading, making legal arguments, etc. that you seem to criticize, both because I can't imagine a scenario where humans interacting with AI technology don't need a baseline level of knowledge of the law and because I don't think these changes are going to come all that quickly.  It is also pretty absurd to claim that summaries from 2003 are "the same".  75% the same?  Sure.  But actually the same?  Doubtful.  Even if they were "the same", that doesn't demonstrate that law school curricula are dated or make them irrelevant.  If that is the current state of the law, then that is the current state of the law.
    • Agreed. Also I’m at UBC (where OP also seems to attend) and I’ve had several recruiters at big firms tell me, unprompted, that we have a great CSO that understands exactly what the firms want. Probably since our CSO people have worked at large firms.  Just wanted to add that since I don’t think it’s helpful for OP to go down the path of thinking an incompetent CSO was his or her issue. 
×
×
  • Create New...