I'm going to get bashed for this, I know. I'm not going to give false hope or anything but I have to say it really bugs me when people say 'you have to have X score' to go here or there or wherever. There are lots of exceptions to chiasu. You can argue your case to a school, visit, sit in classes, write to a professor, write a compelling addendum, many people on this board raised their scores by more than two points, many schools take the higher score, and many (probably even top 30 schools) might take his first with more work experience and an amazing application. Yes, I've cited exceptions, but there are a TON of them all the same. I think if the applicant goes the extra mile to make an impression, it's entirely possible to overcome a low LSAT score. I'm an example of someone getting in massively against the odds and I know many others like me. I know everyone here's just trying to be helpful and realistic - and that I will be critiqued for being unrealistic - but what I am saying is true as well. If I were the OP I'd take a long hard look at my application, fly out to schools, talk to adcoms, sit in on classes, spend the time until I apply doing amazing things and really think about my addendums and personal statement so that they are unique.
I see these posts a lot and this is the thought I am stuck with: Why would someone care so much about the specific number ranking ( and not look beyond that to the other assets of the school) but then in turn expect the schools to look beyond their LSAT numbers to discover the really cool person behind them???
You should really see if you can take advantage of the Kaplan higher score guarantee (just to get the new materials for free) and do some hard cor prep on your own. If you can't do a practice test above a 160, you sure as hell aren't getting a 180 on the real deal.
"T30" seems a bit strange as a cutoff point for acceptable schools. I mean, UNC-CH is a T30, but it would make little sense to go there over (say) Lewis & Clark if one wanted to work in Portland, or Cardozo if NY, etc. It would be helpful to know if the OP knows where he/she wants to work. Kaplan's biggest problem is not their homemade questions; it's their techniques. They suck. Advice like "Read Carefully" and "Attack the answer choices" isn't all that helpful to someone who wants to score above 150. Also, the LR section of the 2005 Kaplan LSAT book contains this gem: "Every Logical Reasoning stimulus contains an argument consisting of two elements: (1) conclusion (2) evidence (paraphrase)." This, of course, is not true in Resolve the Paradox and other question types that only contain sets of facts in the stimulus. Somehow, Kaplan manages to miss this.