So... if most people can (and do) prep and improve their score (most schools, like U Chicago, even tell students to prep) - than you are saying that if you ALSO prepped and scored the same, you would be at a disadvantage? It seems to me that your arguement only makes sense if you make the assumption that all, or at lease the majority, of students at all schools do not prep for the LSAT. If this were true, then you could likely assume prepping to up your score would have you at a disadvantage.
However, since most people prep for the LSAT, to NOT prep, does not keep you on even footing with students at your future school - if anything, it places you at a personal disadvantage at a school you could have done much better than.
As to the OP, people prep different times. I spent about one and a half months, some people spend a full year, and some people do not prep at all. It's whatever amount you feel is worth the payoff in terms of schools/scholarships you might recieve.
You misinterpreted the reasoning I had for not prepping, so I will spell it out again: Lets say there are two students, with identical GPA's, who both score 165, and are eligible for the same T30-70 schools. The first prepped constantly for the LSAT, raising his initial score of 156 to the 163-166 practice range with consistency, and took the LSAT for those results. The second student did not prep at all, and got a 165 based only upon his natural ability. Had he prepped he could have gotten into a top school, but instead he took the LSAT based solely on his ability. There are two possibilities that each student could then pursue: get into the T30ish school where they each would be around 25th percentile, and they would find many students with similar numbers, but the one with the 165 natural easily could have been above that 25th percentile with prepping. Had he chosen to prep, he would have gotten some $$$ too probably. The other step would be to go to a school where the score was representative of a higher proportion of those admitted, maybe even 75th percentile, and they each could probably receive $$$. But since almost everyone DOES prep, then those people at the same lower ranked school, with similar index scores at the top of those admitted, not only would be getting the $$$, but would represent the top LSAT scores. But the person who didn't prep, and did so off natural ability alone, would have an advantage over all those who got the same top scores with prepping.
I guess it depends on where you want to go to school in the long run, but based on my friend who did this and took a full ride to a local school, and was 1st in his class 1L, took a great summer associateship, and is now EIC of LR is comfortable with his decision. In comparison, another friend of mine squeaked into Emory, because he had an excellent GPA from a TTT undergrad, but prepped all summer of Junior year for the October test, improved drastically, and got was admitted. He was in the bottom LSAT numbers of those admitted, and although worked his arse off, he was bottom 1/3 of his class 1L, took a crappy associateship paying $14/hr because he needed a paying internship to start knocking his principal off all his loans, and is stuck at a smaller firm in Atlanta this summer, which although is paying much nicer, means he is still in Atlanta, and his whole plan was to attend the best school he could and return to practice in Philly.
Everyone is different, and everyone will approach the LSAT and the application process in different ways. I may even prep for a month and take the June test, but I'm not trying to just squeak into the best school I can, because I know where I want to live and practice, and will try to gain a competitve edge. This was just my $.02, but don't fail to recognize that one of the most essential abilities a lawyer needs to hone is a strategic approach to a situation that has multiple outcomes. Look at LS as a 3 year Bar Review course, with the application process as your first implementation of your natural strategic focus, and accept the fact that the results will be drastic either way, and that it is a huge decision.
[/quote]
WOW.. Your logic is still flawed. Because your asuming the frist premis will be true.. your whole argument is based on unlikely situation.