<p>With a 3.7 at a very good school, lot’s of impressive leadership, not sure where exactly he wants to go, nephew wonders should he retake the LSAT? He asked me if it looked bad to take it a second time. I told him I had no idea, but I’d ask all of you. Is it viewed much like the SAT when taken a 2nd time, no big deal, or do higher tier law schools frown upon this? Any help would be appreciated.</p>
<p>He should retake. It’s NOT looked at the same way as the SAT; it’s best to take it once and do well. However, it is better to take it twice and do well the second time than to take it once and have a mediocre score, which is his situation now. </p>
<p>However, IMO, he should NOT retake unless he is confident he can improve his score.</p>
<p>It depends (such a classic lawyer answer, but here it’s the truth).</p>
<p>If your nephew had been scoring much higher on practice tests, or if he didn’t really prepare for the LSATs and is willing to study hard for them before retaking, then I’d suggest he do another round. Any detriment to taking them a second time (and law schools seem to care much less about retakes than they used to–probably because of a change in how the US News rankings calculate LSAT scores) would be erased by a gain of even a few points. With a 3.7 and a score in the mid 160s, your nephew has a decent chance at top 25 law schools. A 159 would limit his options.</p>
<p>On the other hand, if he studied hard and a 159 isn’t out of keeping with his practice tests, there’s probably no reason to re-take it. In that scenario, I’d suggest he really think about what region of the country he’d like to practice in (taking a few years off to work if he’s not sure yet) and apply to as many schools in that area as possible. Below the top 10 or 20 law schools, getting jobs is much easier if you went to law school in that area and can tap into the alumni network.</p>
<p>I echo all of what stacy said, but I’ll add: his maximum is *probably *predictable from his SAT score (M+V). SAT/21 + 101 +/- 5 is about what he should be aiming for. If he’s already hit that, he’s probably maxed out already.</p>
<p>Retake the LSAT as a 159 has a limiting effect on his upward options while a slightly lower LSAT will probably not significantly harm his chances at the law schools for which he is currently a match stats-wise.</p>
<p>bluedevilmike: where did you get that information from? The whole probable prediction thing?</p>
<p>Empirical observation. Seems to work okay among most of the people I ask, with a few exceptions.</p>
<p>was just curious- so I checked out BDM’s formula using my kid’s SAT score and her LSAT score- and it was right on the money!! of course the + 5 points would be nice- but I guess she could have just as easily received 5 points lower too.</p>
<p>Probably is a good move on her part not to retake.</p>
<p>You’re empirical observation or is this common knowledge?</p>
<p>It’s been floating around for a while. I believe I first saw it on this board.</p>
<p>The formula is a good starting point, depending on how much you prepared for the SATs. The formula projects my LSAT to be a 159. Since I studied minimally for my SATs and my LSAT practice tests are in the high 150s with minimal practice, I would say the formula is accurate. I hope to add at least that extra 5 (159+5=164!!!) by really preparing for the LSAT.</p>
<p>So I should expect to max out at 165-170 (1350 math/verbal)? That’s depressing. I was aiming for a 179.</p>
<p>I did get a 216 on my PSATs though. If I took the SAT right after taking SAT prep, I probably would have gotten a 2160. In which case, it should have been 168-172. Ugh.</p>
<p>Of course, any predictions depend on all the information we have – the SAT is just one component. There’s also any practice LSAT exams that have been taken, track record in logic courses, etc. But SAT exams are a good starting point.</p>
<p>Just because there’s a formula doesn’t mean anything. Yes, it’s empirical evidence, but there’s always outliers. Of course, while I had SAT Prep classes, I don’t think I took the SATs that seriously, which dramatically hindered my CR. I don’t know how much it would effect my LSAT scores considering, I’d still only just be shy of 170 (not including that extra five). Hell, I don’t even know if Law School is for me.</p>
<p>Just because there’s outliers doesn’t mean the formula doesn’t mean anything. It just means there are outliers. The formula’s assembled just based on observation rather than any good study, but to say that the existence of outliers renders its whole usefulness invalid? Come on.</p>
<p>I was trying to lift someone’s spirits…Thanks though…</p>
<p>The formula is accurate. However, I wanted to add I think it’s more accurate if you did NOT prep for the SAT, and then you prep for the LSAT.</p>
<p>It predicted a 169 for me (I did NOT prep for the SAT) but I got a 172 on the real deal (with prep). My first diagnostic was in the early 160s so I improved some.</p>
<p>For the OP, your nephew should retake only if he knows he will improve. The top law schools (despite the recently enacted "law’ of using the highest LSAT) still tend to average your scores for admissions purposes.</p>
<p>The LSAT should be taken once. If more than once, generally schools average.</p>