Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Clearly I'm delusional, but I thought 166 wasn't too bad?  (Read 1683 times)

legallyblind

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Clearly I'm delusional, but I thought 166 wasn't too bad?
« on: August 01, 2009, 10:52:26 PM »
I'm reading all of these posts where people are debating whether or not to retake the LSAT and have 160+ scores, which I thought was pretty good.  I wasn't thrilled with my score, since I had consistently tested in practice between 168-171, but I didn't think it was worth throwing in the towel or delaying my app until I could retake. Any insights?  Please, save the snickering at me for even thinking this is a good idea.  But any input would be appreciated...I'm starting to feel a bit sick at the thought of the adcom finding my application to be comic relief! :P

,.,.,.;.,.,.

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2016
    • View Profile
Re: Clearly I'm delusional, but I thought 166 wasn't too bad?
« Reply #1 on: August 02, 2009, 04:07:38 AM »
Yes, that's a terrible score, unless you want a full-ride at a toilet.  Sorry.  170+ is fine.

Pardon Johnny Cash.

  • Global Moderator
  • LSD Obsessed
  • ****
  • Posts: 5311
    • View Profile
Re: Clearly I'm delusional, but I thought 166 wasn't too bad?
« Reply #2 on: August 02, 2009, 09:03:45 AM »
I've heard of people scoring under 170 and getting into Chicago  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Ninja1

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3089
  • ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Clearly I'm delusional, but I thought 166 wasn't too bad?
« Reply #3 on: August 02, 2009, 08:44:11 PM »
166 sucks if you're a HYS striver and not a URM.

166 is great if you're trying to go to some random school in the T50, or get a good ride to a number of schools in the T100.
I'mma stay bumpin' till I bump my head on my tomb.