We don't believe all your 170 LSATs

[Hegdis 18387]

Pretty much. 

[CleanHands 1904]

I was internally debating whether to respond to this thread. I more or less agree with the gist of what most people here are saying, but my experience leads me to a weird ambivalence. My skepticism about such claims is tempered to some extent, some of the time, and I want to offer encouragement and provide an example to people, but I also find such claims/aspirations from people more annoying than most would, at the same time.

I was a low GPA, high LSAT splitter. I know firsthand that it is 100% possible to have a sub 3.0 cGPA (and unimpressive softs) but a 170+ LSAT. @Diplock thank you for the 10-inch member analogy, but thank you less so for the bit of the analogy about compensation for a shit personality.

Like everyone else in this thread, I have seen the recurring threads where people with bad GPAs seek validation that so long as they totally crush the LSAT everything will be okay and they will gain admittance to their law school of choice. And this is where my ambivalence kicks in--I know this is possible, because I did it. I also intellectually know it's unlikely, but overemphasizing that just seems like jerking myself off.

Since this thread was directed at people who would be inclined to post hypothetical 170+ LSATs in chances posts to gauge if there is any hope for them if they were to obtain such a score, I'll add what I've defaulted to telling people in such a position (should such people read this thread):

Here is the June 2007 LSAT: https://www.lsac.org/sites/default/files/legacy/docs/default-source/jd-docs/sampleptjune.pdf

Write it under timed conditions to get a diagnostic score, playing exam ambient noise in the background (use this or a similar video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bcELNg5cxM).

If you do not get in the 160s as a diagnostic, do not invest a significant amount of time, energy or money into LSAT prep or law school applications. Certainly don't bank on a 170+ score and don't waste anyone's time asking about that hypothetical possibility when there is no indication of your ability to achieve that. But if you do get that kind of diagnostic score, I'm happy to offer hope and encouragement and reassure you that mediocre GPAs can be overcome where law school admissions are concerned.

[capitalttruth 655]

8 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

I was internally debating whether to respond to this thread. I more or less agree with the gist of what most people here are saying, but my experience leads me to a weird ambivalence. My skepticism about such claims is tempered to some extent, some of the time, and I want to offer encouragement and provide an example to people, but I also find such claims/aspirations from people more annoying than most would, at the same time.

I was a low GPA, high LSAT splitter. I know firsthand that it is 100% possible to have a sub 3.0 cGPA (and unimpressive softs) but a 170+ LSAT. @Diplock thank you for the 10-inch member analogy, but thank you less so for the bit of the analogy about compensation for a shit personality.

Like everyone else in this thread, I have seen the recurring threads where people with bad GPAs seek validation that so long as they totally crush the LSAT everything will be okay and they will gain admittance to their law school of choice. And this is where my ambivalence kicks in--I know this is possible, because I did it. I also intellectually know it's unlikely, but overemphasizing that just seems like jerking myself off.

Since this thread was directed at people who would be inclined to post hypothetical 170+ LSATs in chances posts to gauge if there is any hope for them if they were to obtain such a score, I'll add what I've defaulted to telling people in such a position (should such people read this thread):

Here is the June 2007 LSAT: https://www.lsac.org/sites/default/files/legacy/docs/default-source/jd-docs/sampleptjune.pdf

Write it under timed conditions to get a diagnostic score, playing exam ambient noise in the background (use this or a similar video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bcELNg5cxM).

If you do not get in the 160s as a diagnostic, do not invest a significant amount of time, energy or money into LSAT prep or law school applications. Certainly don't bank on a 170+ score and don't waste anyone's time asking about that hypothetical possibility when there is no indication of your ability to achieve that. But if you do get that kind of diagnostic score, I'm happy to offer hope and encouragement and reassure you that mediocre GPAs can be overcome where law school admissions are concerned.

To provide you with some further encouragement, I had a sub-optimal cGPA (3.25) and a diagnostic score in the low 150's which I eventually brought up to a 164. It can be done but I had to be persistent in not only my LSAT studying but accepting the fact that I would have to go back to do courses to raise my cGPA.

[CleanHands 1904]

2 minutes ago, capitalttruth said:

To provide you with some further encouragement, I had a sub-optimal cGPA (3.25) and a diagnostic score in the low 150's which I eventually brought up to a 164. It can be done but I had to be persistent in not only my LSAT studying but accepting the fact that I would have to go back to do courses to raise my cGPA.

It's hard to strike the right balance between providing encouragement and providing hard truths. The hypothetical 170s from people who have yet to even write a diagnostic LSAT annoy me as much as anyone else, but if we were to make default assumptions about admission chances before all the info was tallied, I'm guessing few people would have expected either of us to have gotten into law school.

Can't really generalize about these things, I guess.

[Psychometronic 481]

19 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

If you do not get in the 160s as a diagnostic, do not invest a significant amount of time, energy or money into LSAT prep or law school applications. Certainly don't bank on a 170+ score and don't waste anyone's time asking about that hypothetical possibility when there is no indication of your ability to achieve that. But if you do get that kind of diagnostic score, I'm happy to offer hope and encouragement and reassure you that mediocre GPAs can be overcome where law school admissions are concerned.

You indicated in another post that the LSAT came naturally for you. This is not true for many people and double-digit improvement is very possible. I was completely clueless as to how to even approach logic games until after I went through a prep course. My score improved drastically after that. So some people might start off with a low diagnostic but it is still a learnable test and significant improvement is possible. I'm not saying more time and effort will lead to a a 170+ but I am saying people shouldn't be discouraged from striving to improve a low diagnostic.

[Starling 949]

42 minutes ago, Psychometronic said:

You indicated in another post that the LSAT came naturally for you. This is not true for many people and double-digit improvement is very possible. I was completely clueless as to how to even approach logic games until after I went through a prep course. My score improved drastically after that. So some people might start off with a low diagnostic but it is still a learnable test and significant improvement is possible. I'm not saying more time and effort will lead to a a 170+ but I am saying people shouldn't be discouraged from striving to improve a low diagnostic.

Yes. I went from a 151 diagnostic to a 167 score. I am pretty sure I got every single logic game question wrong on my diagnostic. I put a lot of work into learning how to do that section correctly. 

Improvement is very possible, but it's not easy. I do think the LSAT is learnable for many people if they put in the time. 

Edited December 29, 2020 by Starling

[HopefulLawyer97 164]

Glad this post was made. I started getting self-conscious of my 3 in...I mean...162 LSAT. 

Using Ontario schools as a basis:

U of T reports a median LSAT of 166-167. This implies that half of U of T’s 200 admits scored below this midpoint. You’d think from this board that all 200 U of T admits scored 170+. 

Osgoode, which is probably the second most competitive school in Ontario, has historically reported a median LSAT of 159-161. 

Queens and Western are similarly competitive and report median scores of 161-162. 
 

Ottawa, Windsor and Ryerson don’t even disclose this data. I would assume that medians for these schools are sub 160.
 

The average law school admit is probably scoring between 157-163 in Ontario. I’d estimate that this is roughly the 25th and 75th percentile of all Ontario admits in any given year. 

There are about 1600 1L seats available at all Ontario law schools. 3% of this is 48. 

Assuming that the population of students who accept their offers have LSAT scores proportionate to the general LSAT taking population, roughly 48 Ontario 1L students a year scored 170+. 

The posts on this board, if they are representative of the general population, would suggest otherwise. Of course, there is probably some response bias - those with higher scores are more willing to share - but it seems like everyone and their dog is now scoring 170+. 

The LSAT flex may have been “easier” in the sense that it was shorter, but the LSAT percentiles are fixed and they have been since 1991. I doubt that changed this year.

If there’s one thing I learned from my first semester of law school, it’s that law students are full of fucking shit. People lie about grades. People lie about extracurriculars. People lie on their resume. People lie in interviews. People lie about everything. 

There’s no reason to think that it’s any different when it comes to LSAT scores. 

[AllanRC 201]

While I cannot say I am not saddened about this abrupt movement away from dick analogies 🤣, I think @CleanHandshas brought up a worthy discussion point; namely, how does one know when encouragement is a helpful motivator versus when it is actually doing someone a disservice by providing hope when there is cause for little? 

I have spent 2-3 years collectively teaching the LSAT (1-2 nearly a decade ago during my undergrad stint, and this past year) and I still have no idea how to define the threshold between encouragement and false hope. I have seen students go from sub 140s to 160s, though it is rare. I've also seen students try so hard but be unable to wrangle with the logic at pace, and not increase very much at all (but not for a lack of trying).

The best I have come up with is be honest about the numbers and let the student decide how much they want to try. I think by giving them the information, and making sure it is taken at face value (i.e. that they are likely the rule, not the exception), that the best balance is struck. If it's something that they want to try and apply themselves at, despite the odds, who am I to say don't do it?

[Diplock 13830]

I don't mind at all if this is going to turn into a wider discussion (and seriously, I was never hooked on the analogy to dicks, but if I were, I'd agree that width should be addressed) but I do think that outright lying is a different topic from the "degrees of encouragement" dilemma.

My big issue is with people who insist on presenting themselves as already having obtained a top LSAT score in order to elicit reactions based on that scenario that take it as real. How that plays out in the mind of the person who created that situation (and is the only person who knows for sure it's an ambition rather than a reality) is less my concern than what it does to the community here more generally. I've addressed that already, but I do think it's incredibly toxic. And there's no excuse for it. You want to create another one of the hundreds of threads here that say "here's where I'm at, now IF I get a 170+ LSAT what are my chances?" you go for it. And yes, you'll get some reactions that call your assumption into question. If you are so fucking fragile that you can't deal with that, you need therapy and not help applying to law school. There's no excuse to simply lie in order to trick people into treating your hypothetical situation as real.

That's where my opinion is absolute. Where it becomes more fluid is the appropriate reaction to the hypothetical when it's presented, properly, as a hypothetical. As in, how much does each person who wants to believe they can achieve a top LSAT score need to be cautioned against believing that hard work, determination, etc. can and will get them there? I honestly don't know. I tried my hand very lightly at LSAT coaching after my own success, but that was over a decade ago and people here have far more recent experience than I do. I agree it's a fine line. Significant improvement is possible for some, but not at all guaranteed. Of course it's not literally comparable to penile enlargement, which mainly rests on gimmicks and bullshit. It's more similar to losing significant amounts of weight. You need to find the line between encouraging people to make their best efforts, while at the same time not shaming those for whom it's impossible - because for many people, it will be impossible.

All of that is important. And I don't pretend to have a perfect answer, save that I agree it's very complicated and it isn't useful to gravitate to any extreme.

Just to circle around though, I'll add this. The additional problem with lying about one's own success (beyond creating a badly distorted impression of what's "normal") is that it often doesn't even stop at tricking people into responding to the hypothetical only to receive an assessment of one's "chances" based on the lie. It keeps going. The lie feels good. Like talking about the book that's supposedly half-written but really exists only in your dreams and ambitions. In so many of these questionable threads (some of which are outright proven as lies now, due to duplicate accounts) the poster not only claims to have a 170+ LSAT but describes how they got it! And of course it's invariably a self-serving description which "proves" that it only takes hard work, determination, etc. It becomes a dangerous, delusional, irresponsible account of all that shit we just agreed is nuanced and complicated. Sometimes even when someone who starts out lying doesn't want to continue or embellish the lie, gullible would-be applicants jump on the thread and just start asking how they too can achieve a top LSAT score. And now what?

So yes, these are related problems. But there's a bright line before we get to the blurry line. Anyone who feels the need to claim their success is real and already achieved when it's still hypothetical and aspirational...sure, they need and deserve help. They should get it from a therapist. Everyone else who comes here with the truth deserves the best we've got in reply, and shouldn't be unreasonably discouraged or unreasonably encouraged. We may not agree on exactly what that looks like. But I think we can agree it's what we're aiming for.

Edited December 29, 2020 by Diplock

[DABMAN 11]

43 minutes ago, Diplock said:

If you are so fucking fragile that you can't deal with that, you need therapy and not help applying to law school.

Maybe its because I've recently finished watching it but I'm getting major Cobra Kai vibes 🐍

[Eeee 1269]

Since Diplock went to school it became a lot easier for a motivated candidate to score 170+.

Time accommodations are trivial to obtain and no longer taint a score. The test can now be rewritten indefinitely without penalty.

Sure it is less "predictive" now, but people with "merit" that the test is designed to recognize shouldn't go to law school.

[Diplock 13830]

17 minutes ago, DABMAN said:

Maybe its because I've recently finished watching it but I'm getting major Cobra Kai vibes 🐍

Could also be, you know, my avatar. Just saying.

[WindsorEquityPartner 29]

I notice that you are upset to the post of rage posting on the internet about something as small as forum users possibly exaggerating their LSAT scores. I would advise that you stay in school for a long time, as  the real world may feel like a slap in the face, if not a much worse, kick to the teeth. 

[Hegdis 18387]

8 minutes ago, WindsorEquityPartner said:

I notice that you are upset to the post of rage posting on the internet about something as small as forum users possibly exaggerating their LSAT scores. I would advise that you stay in school for a long time, as  the real world may feel like a slap in the face, if not a much worse, kick to the teeth. 

Diplock has been practising law for some ten years. 

[AllanRC 201]

1 hour ago, WindsorEquityPartner said:

I notice that you are upset to the post of rage posting on the internet about something as small as forum users possibly exaggerating their LSAT scores. I would advise that you stay in school for a long time, as  the real world may feel like a slap in the face, if not a much worse, kick to the teeth. 

LOL

I was wrong. The dick analogy is not nearly the funniest thing to happen in this thread. The laughs I am getting from a new poster telling @Diplock, a veteran CRIMINAL attorney, that life is going to be hard. BAHAHAHA 

 

Edited December 29, 2020 by AllanRC

[Shankar 139]

1 hour ago, WindsorEquityPartner said:

[...] the real world may feel like a slap in the face, if not a much worse, kick to the teeth. 

If you're gonna say something nonsensical, at least stay with the theme of the thread and call it a kick to the junk. 

 

[realpseudonym 2291]

28 minutes ago, AllanRC said:

LOL

I was wrong. The dick analogy is not nearly the funniest thing to happen in this thread. The laughs I am getting from a new poster telling @Diplock, a veteran CRIMINAL attorney, that life is going to be hard. BAHAHAHA 

 

5 minutes ago, Shankar said:

If you're gonna say something nonsensical, at least stay with the theme of the thread and call it a kick to the junk. 

 

 

[canuckfanatic 1141]

1 hour ago, WindsorEquityPartner said:

I notice that you are upset to the post of rage posting on the internet about something as small as forum users possibly exaggerating their LSAT scores.

I'm now convinced you exaggerated the 175 LSAT score you posted.

[GingerBreadCookie 57]

Since we’re on the topic of penis size again, can someone let me know my chances of being admitted into the porn industry? My stats are as follows:

Penis Length: 9 SOLID inches (or cm forgot which side of the ruler I was using tbh)

Average Time Elapsed Before Climax: 41 seconds

Although my length score is good, I understand my climax score makes me a splitter. I have some decent ECs but unfortunately, I think my climax score is the culprit of my reference letters being kinda poor. Thanks!

[HopefulLawyer97 164]

3 hours ago, GingerBreadCookie said:

Since we’re on the topic of penis size again, can someone let me know my chances of being admitted into the porn industry? My stats are as follows:

Penis Length: 9 SOLID inches (or cm forgot which side of the ruler I was using tbh)

Average Time Elapsed Before Climax: 41 seconds

Although my length score is good, I understand my climax score makes me a splitter. I have some decent ECs but unfortunately, I think my climax score is the culprit of my reference letters being kinda poor. Thanks!

This is genius comedy.