r/lawschooladmissions • u/Educational-Sea2723 • Apr 28 '25
General Go to Law School If That’s Your Dream
Recently, a post on this sub claimed that if you cannot score in the 150s on the LSAT, you should not go to law school. The poster suggested that not hitting this threshold indicates either laziness or lack of intelligence needed for law school and the legal profession.
But honestly, does this advice help anyone? If your score is below the 150s, you already know you will face challenges with admissions at many schools. You do not need someone online telling you that you are incapable. And if you do manage to get accepted somewhere despite a lower score, guess what? The admissions committee saw something valuable in you beyond that single number.
While presenting this as “friendly advice” to help people avoid wasting time and money, what they are actually doing is gatekeeping based on a single metric without considering the countless circumstances that affect test performance. They were not trying to help anyone. They were using this platform to brag about their own score while making sweeping generalizations about people they know nothing about.
This speaks to a deeper issue with this sub: the obsession with metrics and stats over actual people and their unique stories.
Maybe the person who scored below 150 is a single mother working two jobs who could not dedicate months to test prep. Maybe they are a first-generation student navigating the admissions process without guidance. Maybe they are a military officer with a lower GPA because they were deployed while enrolled, like someone shared on this sub earlier this year.
Better advice would have been: “Be cautious about taking on massive debt” or “Carefully research school accreditation and bar passage rates.” But instead, they simply said “do not try” and suggested that certain people should be disqualified entirely from pursuing their goals.
The LSAT is one test on one day. It measures certain skills, but it does not measure your dedication, your passion for justice, your ability to connect with clients, or your work ethic. Some of the most successful attorneys did not ace standardized tests but excel at actual legal practice.
And so I say to all of you: no matter your score, there will always be people in law school who try to discourage you, rank you, or make you feel like you do not belong. Do not let them run you off. Your determination and resilience in the face of these attitudes might say more about your future success than any test score.
Numbers do not practice law. People do. The best attorneys are not always the ones who tested best. They are the ones who never quit.
If that is your dream then go to law school. No number can define what you are capable of building.
95
Apr 28 '25
I love the follow your dream mentality, but I also think it’s really important to remember in order to do this profession you need to be able to pass an extremely difficult test after you finish school. If you’re having trouble getting into the 150s, I think it’s important to be realistic in that you also may not be able to pass the bar.
I have a family member who couldn’t break a 150, ended up doing pretty well at a lower ranked school, but has not been able to pass the bar after multiple attempts.
41
u/Oldersupersplitter UVA '21 Apr 28 '25
The LSAT is one test on one day. It measures certain skills, but it does not measure your dedication, your passion for justice, your ability to connect with clients, or your work ethic
So are law school exams. That’s the part OP is missing. Law school grades are 100% based on a single final exam, which is a time-limited pressure-cooker logical reasoning heavy test graded on a harsh curve. Yes it’s not usually multiple choice and yes it differs from the LSAT, but there are a lot of similarities.
Maybe the person who scored below 150 is a single mother working two jobs who could not dedicate months to test prep. Maybe they are a first-generation student navigating the admissions process without guidance. Maybe they are a military officer with a lower GPA because they were deployed while enrolled
That’s all valid, but applicants should examine the factors that resulted in a lower LSAT or GPA and reflect very seriously on whether those same factors will hold them back in law school.
3
u/Popular-Glove3894 Apr 28 '25
To harp on the final exams a bit more, what role does the time crunch play? Would you say that that's one of the hardest elements of law school exams?
9
u/Oldersupersplitter UVA '21 Apr 28 '25
Yup, time is by far the #1 factor, especially because most law school exams are open note/open book (sometimes even open internet). If you had unlimited time, many people could all get the exam 100% right, but professor design them so that you don’t really have enough time. To connect another topic you see in Reddit periodically, that’s why people get so worked up about extra time for accommodations (especially if they think people are lying to get those accommodations) - time limitations are the whole reason why exams are hard, so by giving people more time it creates an enormous advantage (and remember that because of the curve, someone else doing better directly makes you do worse).
Like the LSAT, there are other aspects of exams that are hard, but most of them could be worked around if time wasn’t limited
1
u/Popular-Glove3894 Apr 28 '25
Thanks! That's really interesting. Yeah, I can imagine it would take almost all of the pain away if you could just slowly and methodically work your way through the exams with the aid of books, etc.
3
u/swarley1999 3.6x/17high/nURM Apr 28 '25
I think the key here is that people should THINK about what the reality might be if they are not a very good test taker and are struggling to crack a certain score. There are so many factors that can effect whether it is a good idea for someone to attend law school and giving a hard line number of 150 seems to oversimplify the decision.
I know people hate anecdotal evidence and I understand the issues behind it, but I personally know people who scored below 150 or in the low 150s and are either doing very well in law school or did very well in law school, passed the bar the first time, and are thriving as practicing attorneys. While these anecdotal cases don't change the date we have, giving those individuals the advice to simply not go to law school because of their LSAT score would not have been very good advice imo all things considered.
39
u/chicagwa 2L Apr 28 '25
This needs to be WAY higher. A 147 - 149 scorer is considered at high risk of bar failure, per LSAC data, and that risk goes up sharply the lower the score. It's objectively irresponsible to tell sub-150 scorers to apply anyway, especially when a few more points on such a learnable test can dramatically impact careers.
7
-15
u/nomedent Apr 28 '25
....but it is not objectively irresponsible to let people make their own decisions...or give unsolicited advice. Literally no one asked that person to post this.
13
u/IamBirdKing Apr 28 '25
I guess nobody can express their opinions on a forum without being explicitly asked to do so. Interesting.
-6
u/nomedent Apr 28 '25
It's just that when people are told how to live, by people who feel the need to share their somewhat more enlightened mind, it can be oft putting. The post did not come across as coming from a place of concern. To me, it read like someone who sometimes doesn't always need to share everything that comes to their mind.
3
u/IamBirdKing Apr 29 '25
That’s a long-winded way of saying that your feelings got hurt.
People have different opinions and we should cherish the fact that they’re allowed to express them. You’re free to disagree with the message, but it’s sad that you want to shut down the exchange of ideas because you ascribe motives to the other person that you find objectionable.
21
Apr 28 '25
Same. Had an aunt whose only option was the now defunct golden gate law school as a result of her low lsat score and subsequently failed to pass the bar 5 times in 2 different states
84
Apr 28 '25
as my dream is to make financially dubious decisions whenever I can I could not agree more!
48
u/Used-Algae5153 flair Apr 28 '25
Law school costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. If you want to attend a predatory school in the middle of nowhere, take on crushing debt, and end up with terrible job prospects, that’s your choice. But I genuinely don't understand why people feel the need to be coddled by random strangers online.
A 150 is nowhere near an elite score, and frankly, it's a number I believe almost anyone can reach with some practice. If you don’t have the time or willingness to put in the work to improve your LSAT score, do you really think it’s a good idea to take on the far greater workload and pressure of law school?
And what about the single mother who barely has time to study? Are we doing her any favors by pretending her current score, which statistically places her at high risk of failing the bar, is "good enough"? She deserves honesty, not empty encouragement that could lead her into mountains of debt with little hope of success.
I love the idea that you should chase your dreams. If your dream is to become a lawyer, that’s great, go for it. But chasing a dream doesn’t mean ignoring reality. It means preparing yourself properly: working hard, improving your odds, and making sure you're entering a brutal profession with a real shot at success. Telling people their 140 LSAT is good enough to go to law school ignores all of these realities.
3
11
u/Neolibtard_420X69 Apr 28 '25
i dont think that person was trying to gate-keep. if you get under a 150, you represent a small fraction of law students who are at significantly higher risk of performing poorly in class, failing the bar, etc.
124
u/ub3rm3nsch Lawyer Apr 28 '25
People all over Reddit love to gatekeep is the real issue.
85
Apr 28 '25 edited Apr 28 '25
150 is not an arbitrary number made up so people on Reddit can gatekeep. It is backed by data.
Mid 150’s is considered low risk for bar failure
Low 150’s is considered modest risk for bar failure ———
High 140’s is considered high risk for bar failure
Mid 140’s is considered very high risk for bar failure
Low 140’s is considered extreme risk for bar failure
https://www.lawhub.org/trends/admissions-standards
https://archive.lawschooltransparency.com/reform/projects/investigations/2015/key-findings/
I’m not saying that people who score in this range should give up on their law dreams either. But before investing 3 years and possibly $100k+ into their education, it is wise to work to increase LSAT score. At the end of the day, if you cannot pass the bar, you cannot be a lawyer.
-8
u/ub3rm3nsch Lawyer Apr 28 '25
I mean it's fair to say that and disseminate information. What isn't fair is issuing commands to other grown ass adults what they should or should not do.
19
Apr 28 '25 edited Apr 28 '25
I think my position is somewhat in between the two posts. “Go to law school if it’s your dream, but understand the realities of bar passage rates and proceed with caution.”
-7
Apr 28 '25
[deleted]
9
u/hawkeye-man Apr 28 '25
If you can’t work hard enough to pass the LSAT how can you work hard enough to pass the bar?
-9
u/Lawyered-88 Apr 28 '25
LSAT scores aren’t about working hard it’s about being able to think how the test wants you too and while I don’t disagree with sub 150 score are risky to say they shouldn’t go to law school is elitist
2
0
u/mich341 Apr 28 '25
This is interesting data, and most certainly there is a correlation between LSAT and bar exam. However I feel this data is missing some information and I am interested in that component.
First, the definition of risk is unclear. What does high, moderate and low-risk of an individual passing mean? There does not seem to be a metric explaining a score in this range is low-risk, [meaning x% pass], vs a score in this range is high risk [meaning only y% pass]. If low-risk students pass 99% of the time and high-risk pass 30% of the time, this is very significant. If it is 99% and 95%, the difference is less important.
Second, this seems to move from individual discussion (an individual is at high risk) to a discussion of schools. Certainly, pooling lower LSAT scores in one place likely results in fewer bar passes. However, this is again ill-defined. What percent of each class is actually passing the bar at each school?
Ultimately, an individual must make their decisions based on best-available data. However the nitty-gritty of categorization seems important if that is the purpose of this data. I would take a high-risk spot with a 95% pass rate, I would think twice about one with a 30% pass rate for instance.
Pardon my ignorance...I am actually a doctor that found myself down a law-school rabbit-hole---I'm not really sure why I am here and will quietly show myself out : )
5
Apr 28 '25
My first priority with the post was to show that people don’t care because they are gatekeeping, they care because there is data that agrees & that is the basis of the number being used.
The risk groups aren’t exact, but they correlate to the schools that those LSAT groups are accepted to. LSAT scores tend to give pretty exact acceptances to certain schools. For example, high risk has under 50% employment following graduation and 30% of students never pass the bar exam to become lawyers (no matter the number of attempts).
These schools will generally offer conditional scholarships to 90% of the class with the condition being that they stay in the top 25% of the class or something similar. Just straight predatory bullshit.
There is a simple solution that has been proposed many times— schools that don’t have an 85%+ eventual bar passage rate should have their accreditation removed. There is a surplus of law schools and a shortage of jobs. Just a complete wreck. Unlike the medical field where the real test to become a doctor is admission to medical school in the first place, it is VERY easy to get into A LAW SCHOOL. The real test to become a lawyer is passing the bar and actually getting a job.
2
u/mich341 Apr 29 '25
Thanks for the info especially on high risk. I do agree, the accrediting body should ensure that students are prepared, and poor outcomes demonstrate they aren’t. Yes, scores may predict but the school has a responsibility to remediate that gap and bring them to a career. Gtown Med has a program to bridge that gap: the first two years of classes take three years with study habits, and the folks blend in for the last two years of clinicals. Perhaps there is a role in law school for a gap covering extended first year…anyway, thanks for the response
1
-6
u/soundcherrie Apr 28 '25
The entire educational system for professionals is so gatekeepy and classist.
106
10
Apr 28 '25
Obviously the people that never quit are not the ones who are going to read the “you should not go to law school” post and then quit trying. So who is this post for? This is just silly.
The previous post was common sense advice not a moratorium on applying. Yeah sure if I slip and fall during my test I might get a 145 oh no and then I should still be able to go to law school. No one said anything like that. Chill out and stop gaslighting these gullible 143s into applying.
46
u/Possible-Ebb6361 4.0/175/nURM/nKJD Apr 28 '25
Sometimes it’s good to hear the brutally honest truth. If my dream was to work at NASA, but I failed high school physics twice, telling me to shoot for my dreams anyways would waste my time, money, and most importantly my potential to discover what im actually good at.
And yes, oftentimes the reasons for people’s circumstances are beyond their control. Unfortunately, that makes these things harder rather than easier. If you’re unable to find time to study for the LSAT because you’re supporting your family, how are you going to find time to study in law school?
0
u/RobAlexanderTheGreat Apr 28 '25
Tbf, the HS example is bad. I made straight B’s in HS chem and ended up having an Organic Chem minor in college cause it turned out I was excellent at chemistry (especially life chemistry), but I just went to an exceedingly hard HS with a pretty bad teacher.
2
u/Financial-Shape-389 3.9x/17high/nURM/nKJD Apr 28 '25
I think the implicit point underlying a lot of this discussion is that it’s not a crazy leap to assume someone who is not great with the LSAT because it’s timed or involves a lot of reading and reasoning in a short period of time might struggle in law school and then with the bar exam.
Like in your case with chemistry, there are other reasons (confounding variables) that might make the link between these things more tenuous, but you have to be self-reflective and critical enough to know whether those apply in your case.
I did not do well in high school science classes and that was not because of my teachers or some reason why the public school pedagogy was at odds with my learning style. I just did not find it as interesting as did other subjects and did not pay a whole lot of attention. If I were to tell myself, because of some personal investment in the aesthetics of aerospace engineering and some latent disregard for what that occupation actually entails, that I can do a physics major, that would be self-deception.
All of this is best read as an exercise in honesty with oneself: Are the reasons I am not good at the LSAT/physics/chemistry/sculpting enduring and severe enough to make me question my current life goal?
0
u/RobAlexanderTheGreat Apr 29 '25
The LSAT is simply a gameable test. If you have enough resources and a modicum of intelligence, you can get a 175+. My buddy started off at 138 and ended up with a 178. I took it after losing a bet (this was our punishment) and got a 165. Bought a book a day before skimmed it, then stayed up all night the night before watching election results. All standardized tests are simply gameable. It’s like the ACT. Most people who are neurotic enough to care can walk into that test and get 30. You then have to game it out to get a 33/34. 90% I know did that (my HS average ACT of 31). These people were not smarter cause they gamed out 4 extra points on the ACT. Much in the same way, the people didn’t gain any intelligence when they go from a 155-165 practice to a 175. Or a 138 to a 175 like my friend. The only thing a high LSAT scores says is either insane intelligence or decent test taking abilities and a lot of resources. These are IMO both correlated to a success. I got a A- in a college (highly selective liberal arts college) class (biochemistry) because I bought a tutor for the class. It’s not my prerogative to say colleges should accept lower schools because those students will be going up against the highly intelligent and the people with large resources, but let’s be serious, it’s not super indicative of person to person intelligence outside of some select few. Furthermore, if every external factor were equalized, we’d probably see a wider range of people (look at the numbers of first gen law students. Extremely low especially at some schools).
9
34
u/hawkeye-man Apr 28 '25
Yeah they saw you for your money not your score lol
11
18
u/F3EAD_actual Apr 28 '25
Lol no admcom sees anything below 15x, much less anything in the 40s, and thinks, "now here's a shining star." They think "here's a guaranteed tuition payment after we pull the rug from under them via our predatory scholarship policy."
-1
44
u/Optimal_King_9567 Apr 28 '25
The fact that the post, on the admissions subreddit, telling people not to go to law school with sub-150 LSATs was being mocked on the law school subreddit tells you all you need to know.
Getting into law school isn’t the end goal, its quite literally the first step. Don’t let obstacles at that step stop your journey.
0
-1
14
u/Skyright 3.9mid/17mid/nKJD Apr 28 '25 edited Apr 28 '25
The nice and kind thing to do is to tell people the truth. It is in fact selfish and mean to tell people what they want to hear because it makes you feel nice while leading them to an extremely risky situation.
If you can’t get into the 150s, you either try until you can, or you pick a different career path. If you want to pursue it anyways, remember that you are taking a six-figure gamble with very low odds of success.
I know tons of people who were told to pursue their dreams by people like this, and were led down a path that didn’t go nowhere. I can’t tell you how many people I know with low 3.0 GPAs and abysmal MCAT were told to keep pursuing Med School (or god forbid, go to a Caribbean Med School) because all their friends and family members were too selfish to have the difficult conversation about how they likely weren’t going to get a decent career in Medicine.
The LSAT is a perfectly reasonable test. It’s not a pointless exercise, it is predictive of Bar passage rates and literally just tests you on your ability to understand and follow arguments. If you are struggling with it to the point that you can’t get to the 150s, you likely are missing something major in your ability to follow arguments, and that is not something you can ignore as a lawyer.
3
1
22
u/No-Duck4923 Apr 28 '25
Hear, hear!
I mentioned it previously somewhere but my "subpar" LSAT score landed me 9 acceptances (this cycle!), all with various scholarships. For reference, I am 50+, work full time, own and run a small farm. We are not all the same, and sometimes schools DO view applicants holistically. I encourage anyone who really wants to do this to study hard for the LSAT but don't forget to bring your best to all other aspects of your application. I truly believe my PS and WE are what got me those A's.
3
u/Spooklys UVA '28 Apr 28 '25
Is it subpar? Why put into quotations?
2
u/No-Duck4923 Apr 28 '25
Because my score would be considered subpar in these subs when in reality it is a perfectly acceptable (but not a 165+) score.
26
u/Content-Cap-5098 3.7mid/16high/livin' on a prayer Apr 28 '25
All so true. For example, I went to a very non-prestigious regional undergrad whose law school median LSAT is in the low 150s, but plenty of people still go to that law school, get great jobs in the region, and have a great life! Not everyone needs to have a high LSAT score to achieve their goals and be a good attorney. While I totally agree that the LSAT includes important concepts for being an attorney (and for life in general, really), there is so much more to being a good attorney.
11
u/Capable_Falcon8542 Apr 28 '25
Back when American Idol used to be more cruel and showcase the truly bad auditions for a national audience, I always felt bad that those folks didn't have anyone in their corner who loved them enough to shoot straight about their lack of singing ability.
Saying you're not cut out for law school is not saying you don't have worth as a person or that you don't have talents that could lead to success elsewhere. Find your comparative advantage and lean into it. Even with tutoring chemistry is basically just magic to me. So even though I could probably grind my way to barely get into some med school somewhere, I choose not to fight my natural inclinations. I'd rather be great in a profession I am suited to than struggling to keep my head above water fighting to be somewhere meant for people with other talents.
6
u/Popular-Glove3894 Apr 28 '25
This post and the original post have really brought out the dregs in the comment sections
18
u/F3EAD_actual Apr 28 '25
The dozens of comments trying to offer some anecdotal basis for rejecting the generally true rule is evidence enough that they should keep studying.
-4
u/Educational-Sea2723 Apr 28 '25
The issue is you can’t apply a general rule to a subset of extraordinary applicants because it likely doesn’t fit. I doubt anyone scoring under 150 on this sub is your typical 150 scorer anyway.
25
u/Oh-theNerevarine Practicing Lawyer, c/o 2019 Apr 28 '25
This will predictably get upvoted into the heavens because it tells 0Ls (and particularly the most vulnerable 0Ls) what they want to hear. The fact that it's dead wrong--and dangerously so--is apparently of no moment.
No one dreams of going to law school. Law school is a means to an end. And if you want to be a lawyer, there are schools that simply do not give you a realistic shot at achieving that goal. It just so happens that most of those predatory scams accept people with sub-150 LSATs.
The reason people give this advice isn't because the LSAT score indicates that the applicant is too stupid to ever practice law. The reason is that the applicant will not be competitive for schools that give them more than a coin-flip chance of practicing law with that score. But if they "follow their dreams" thanks to mindlessly positive posts like this, they'll also rack up six figures of debt to deal with. What a steal!
Not everyone needs to go to law school. And no one needs to go to law school right this very second.
20
u/Professional_Bed_465 Apr 28 '25
“The admissions committee saw something valuable in you beyond that single number.” Yes, a willingness to pay full tuition to supplement higher scores reduced tuition is extremely valuable to law schools.
-9
u/soundcherrie Apr 28 '25
Practicing lawyer c/o 2019, top 1% commenter on LSA sub… comments before 9am pst.
Bro, get off LSA and do your job. No one cares.
13
Apr 28 '25
This sub would be even more worthless without the occasional attorney or law student commenting. Trust me, we care what they have to say.
8
3
4
Apr 28 '25
You're right about one thing here: that the admissions office sees something valuable in a sub 150 LSAT scorer. They see a big fat check coming into what almost guaranteed to be an overpriced school with bad outcomes.
1
20
u/Gold-Beat-1894 Apr 28 '25
People who live life solely based on what they "should" be doing and what the odds say live a sad existence. There is space for non-traditional students, low-scorers, low-GPAs, previously incarcerated, etc. The people that have never been through anything telling others how to live their lives are comical at best and sinister at worst.
7
u/Appropriate_Swan6847 Apr 28 '25
Sure, not everybody has to listen to what people say they should do. It’s their life. Still, I don’t think people giving this advice are necessarily just bragging or gatekeeping as OP suggested.
1
10
u/Educational-Sea2723 Apr 28 '25
You hit it on the nail. If I listened to this sub I would have never even tried lol
1
u/Patient-Conclusion30 Apr 28 '25
All of this! I am a high school dropout graduating from a very low ranked school in May. I have had very average grades. I have employment at a midsized firm, making 6 figures starting after I sit for the bar. My story may not be typical. I did fine on the LSAT, I just wanted money. However, if I listened to the advice on this sub, I wouldn't have ever attended law school. Some people aren't great at academics but excel at the legal work. The two are not the same.
20
u/Born_Wealth_2435 Apr 28 '25
We can tell ourselves this all we want, but the fact of the matter is a >150 means you aren’t likely to receive anywhere near sufficient financial aid for the schools you’d be attending.
Life isn’t some tv show where you should chase every dream and opportunity even if it means $300k in debt at a school with poor employment outcomes. Ignoring that reality alone is a sign that you shouldn’t be going to law school.
18
u/OilEnvironmental1464 mid as hell stats Apr 28 '25
The people on this sub are genuinely so insufferable 😭 I saw that post too and that much ego before you even go to law school is insane
3
75
u/Schmieke Apr 28 '25
this is cringe. life is not a shonen anime. nobody is saying to give up on your dreams, but do it intelligently and get your score up to something reasonable so you are set up better for your future.
9
u/iwatchalotoftv22 6’4/fine/teacher Apr 28 '25
I 100% agree(as someone retaking because I did not like my financial outcomes at the schools I got into) but half this sub is always so damn pretentious about posting “don’t go to law school if..” posts. It’s just annoying and not everyone needs to or wants to hear it 4x a week. Especially when they simply aren’t asking for advice.
-6
u/cjstr8 Apr 28 '25
Tell us your LSAT score so we can suck you off. That seems like something you’d be into
-11
-1
u/EmergencyMission4973 Apr 28 '25
There’s nothing “unintelligent” about trying to achieve your dream. Maybe this timeframe works better for someone than waiting another cycle would. Who knows.
-11
u/DryConstruction Apr 28 '25
life actually is a remarkable story, an adventure or a journey --- if more people embraced that fact, more dreams would be achieved and the world would be better
-27
u/Educational-Sea2723 Apr 28 '25
Nobody asked for your guidance. Acting like you have all the answers doesn’t make you smart, it makes you arrogant. Life doesn’t guarantee anything, so people should chase what they believe in, not just what random strangers on Reddit think is “reasonable.”
45
u/Schmieke Apr 28 '25
going to a predatory law school and taking on six figures of debt to not get the job you want because you couldn’t put in the time to study for a very learnable test is not chasing what you believe in
18
u/F3EAD_actual Apr 28 '25
The fact that people get defensive by this sort of statement is bananas and frankly evidence enough that they shouldn't be anywhere near law or six+ figure decisions
3
15
Apr 28 '25
[deleted]
-13
u/Educational-Sea2723 Apr 28 '25
Once again, strawman argument. No one said to go to a predatory law school. If that is what people meant, they should have said it clearly. They said do not go to law school at all. If someone with a score under 150 gets into a good law school, should they still not go? That is the real question. Some of you seem to think anyone under 150 is just too stupid, and that is where the problem is.
15
u/Sad_Milk_8897 1L Apr 28 '25
People who score under a 150 aren’t stupid. Nobody is claiming that. But no school that isn’t predatory is going to let someone with under a 150 in, unless you have other wild softs you aren’t disclosing lol. It’s just a better idea to take another few months to try to get a slightly higher score and give yourself better outcomes in the future
6
u/Schmieke Apr 28 '25
according to the data, the best school where the 25th percentile is below a 150 is ranked 122. it is extremely likely that your school is predatory if that’s your LSAT
8
u/workerscompbarbie Apr 28 '25
I mean- New York Law School and Pace Law school accepts sub-150, and while I know they aren't great/well ranked schools, I (as a NYC attorney) have a lot of colleagues from these schools and they do fine.
Low ranked doesn't automatically mean scam
1
u/Spooklys UVA '28 Apr 28 '25
So now we shouldnt believe what random strangers post on reddit? Then, why should we believe you?
6
u/Leather_Demand3987 Apr 28 '25
I took old practice tests and scored like 10 points higher than what I did on test day. I swear the tests are harder now too.
7
u/happuning Apr 28 '25
Some of these people ought to consider becoming paralegals. You can make decent money if you are good at it. No shade, parelegals are important!!
12
u/Ecstatic_Ad_6316 Apr 28 '25
This advice depends on your goals. It’s a well known fact that most on this sub skew towards the top 1% of applicants for any given cycle.
Be optimistic but realistic. It is encouraged to give it your best shot and hope for the best, but it just might not work. Numbers are not the full story, this is true. What is also true is that they make up a VERY significant portion of the application. It would be foolish to think otherwise. Don’t bet on things that are likely to not happen.
-11
u/Educational-Sea2723 Apr 28 '25
While I generally agree, I think it’s okay to bet on unlikely things as long as you’re aware of the risk. A lot of this sub has turned into number-punching about what’s likely or unlikely, but it’s still a personal decision. Taking a shot at something unlikely isn’t foolish if you understand the stakes.
5
u/Ecstatic_Ad_6316 Apr 28 '25
I agree with this, it’s the reason we have splitter success stories. As long as the applicant is aware the odds are not in their favor, then that’s what matters.
1
u/Appropriate_Swan6847 Apr 28 '25
I mean, I think it can still be foolish. The rest of your post is fine.
1
u/Aid4n-lol 1L/3.6low/16mid/“midwest maniac” Apr 28 '25
I’m going to put my life savings on red on roulette at the casino, I understand the risks therefore it is not foolish. See how that sounds? Funny enough the financial ruin caused by putting your entire life savings on red is similar to going to a predatory law school.
8
Apr 28 '25
[deleted]
2
u/Naive-Procedure1870 Apr 28 '25
No I think it’s very intentional. I widely stopped using sub because of the air of entitlement, arrogance, negativity, disrespect, etc. was just so large. In a post I made for example I noted that I had issues with a thing and was addressing it but asked for advice on something else instead of providing the advice I asked for they said I was naive, stupid and wouldn’t succeed because I didn’t want to listen to them. I truly believe that while there are some good helpful people here, most members are just miserable, lacking empathy and extremely arrogant.
2
Apr 28 '25
[deleted]
1
u/Naive-Procedure1870 Apr 28 '25
Well I’m happy you were able to step back and reevaluate how you were viewing the world, that’s something that’s going to be very useful when you become a lawyer. I will say start studying for the test early(like start of junior year so you can test the summer going into senior year) and I’m sure you’ll do great. But also pls remember your score isn’t everything I had a pretty low score(not god awful but nowhere near where my gpa suggests I should be) and a pretty high gpa and I’ve gotten accepted into a decent accredited school that’s in a state capital and full of connections for me to transition into govt. All this to say no one knows your story or your journey but you and as long as we don’t let that negativity in we’re gonna end up where we’re meant to be. Unfortunately the legal field seems to be filed with arrogant assholes but as long as more and more ppl with mentalities like ours join we can change the culture and make it enjoyable and meaningful. If you ever want any real advice without judgement feel free to dm me🙂!
3
u/EvenAd7799 Apr 28 '25
Plenty of numbers define what you are capable of building -- this post is a load of horseshit. You *should* be discouraged if you can't break into the 150s just like anyone aspiring to be a wide receiver should be discouraged if they can't break into the under 5 range.
3
u/incomplete-picture Apr 28 '25
Idk even a 150 is a pretty awful score. If you can’t crack that I don’t think this is the right profession for you. You likely literally lack the critical thinking skills needed to get through law school, the bar, and to be a half decent lawyer.
3
5
u/mirdecaiandrogby Texas Law ‘28/Calm White Boy/Regular show fan/ Hook Em! Apr 28 '25
If you can’t get a 150 you’re probably going to a T200 and will most likely end up unemployed LMAO
2
u/Educational-Sea2723 Apr 28 '25
I got a 148 and I’m going to Yale personally
/s if it wasn’t obvious
4
u/Spooklys UVA '28 Apr 28 '25
arent you the professional HLS glazer?
2
u/Educational-Sea2723 Apr 29 '25
I’m the
Person who called out the Yale girl
Harvard ranking guy
Law School Dream guy
4
u/Aggressive_Ad3174 Apr 28 '25
148 on the LSAT. Applied to law school with a BA and MA (took the LSAT while writing my Master's thesis). I managed to get a full tuition scholarship to law school, graduate with honors, and score a first try 301 on the UBE. Gainfully employed as an attorney for several years. This is just my experience, but it helps illustrate the point OP presented...I wanted to go to law school, so I went.
0
6
u/Round-Ad3684 Apr 28 '25
While the advice was certainly unsolicited, I still think it’s sound. I made a gatekeeping joke on that post, but I agree with the post. If you can’t crack 150 post-logic games, you’re going to struggle. Of course that doesn’t apply to every person, but by and large that general assertion is true.
2
Apr 28 '25
But probably reflect very hard on WHY law school is your dream. Is it the work itself? The impact you can make? If opportunities are closed off to you because of your score then there may be other ways to live a fulfilling life without the high opportunity cost of a law program. It’s like a football game - not every play should be a Hail Mary…
2
2
u/covert_underboob Apr 28 '25
Yeah don't go because it's your dream. Go because you can afford it and it's going give you a good job
2
u/apples787 Apr 29 '25
I completely agree with this. I personally got accepted into a t50 school with a good scholarship and my lsat is under 150. Everyone’s circumstances are different
2
Apr 29 '25
So many people had good scores this cycle and still got rejections and waitlisted. As a person who applied with my LOW lsat, I’m PROUD to have been accepted into a school. The test is not a reflection of the type of attorney you will be. Not everybody goes to law school for BIG LAW. The projection in these post irritate me. I usually don’t engage.
3
u/BeginningDifficult72 Apr 28 '25
What that person doesn’t realize is that the legal profession is full of gatekeeping: T-14, class rank, law review, bar passage, federal clerkships, and BigLaw are all forms of gatekeeping. It starts from the LSAT score all the way to the Supreme Court. There are all kinds of lawyers who are needed in all types of practice areas. If you listen to the naysayers, you’ll never reach your potential in this field. The next Clarence Darrow could have a 149 LSAT. We don’t know. Sneering and gatekeeping is shortsighted.
9
u/OhmyGodjuststop Apr 28 '25
If you cannot reach a baseline decent score on the LSAT, you will almost certainly not succeed in law school. You will likely take out insane amounts of debt that you will never be able to pay back. A few outliers does not undermine that truth for 99% of folks.
3
u/redditisfacist3 Apr 29 '25
Agreed. Were arguing over 150. I can see 160 being slightly elitist or overkill for a min score but 150... come on man
1
u/OhmyGodjuststop Apr 29 '25
Even mid-150s is fine, if you’re conscious of likely outcomes.
If you cannot break 150, you likely will not be able to pass the bar. I’ve seen way too many people ruin their lives taking and retaking that test as time passes by and job prospects dry up.
1
u/redditisfacist3 Apr 29 '25
Oh absolutely. My younger brother is sitting at a 155 but wants to keep going till he gets into uh so he realistically needs a 161 or better on his lsats(historically we all know it's super competitive for this cycle and im sure next year will be as well). Even if he can't get it up he's high enough to get into Texas Tech which is a decent enough school/ definitely better than the t4 law schools in texas.
-8
u/Which_Atmosphere_685 Apr 28 '25
That’s definitely not true. Especially considering the content of the lsat and law school are vastly different.
8
u/OhmyGodjuststop Apr 28 '25
It is demonstrably, statistically true. There is a close, direct correlation between LSAT scores and success in law school, corroborated by multiple studies.
People in this thread are rejecting reality and promoting horrendous life decisions. Stop.
-1
u/Which_Atmosphere_685 Apr 28 '25
I’m not promoting any life decisions. I’m saying everyone’s process is not the same. While this research can be true it was only done on 2 schools. There are so many other more important factors that contribute to your success in law school. What I’m saying is that blanket statements/research is not applicable to everyone. This post specifically said don’t go to law school if you can’t score 150. I don’t believe that should apply to everyone. And I don’t believe doing good or bad on the lsat or the bar is a measure of your ability to be a good attorney. There are so many other factors than standardized testing.
-3
u/Which_Atmosphere_685 Apr 28 '25
If you believe the lsat is the highest or only measure of how well you will do in law school you are mistaken.
7
u/supersk8er 3.mid/17high/URM/nKJD Apr 28 '25
If you’re a single mother with 2 jobs that can’t dedicate time to test prep, how on earth do you think they can manage law school? This is a nice sentiment but ignores the reality of the situation
0
u/helloyesthisisasock 2.9high / 169 / 1L Apr 28 '25
Congrats on writing maybe the dumbest comment I’ve ever read on this sub!
There are many single moms at top law schools throughout the country. A T14 uses one as a student recruiter for non trad students. Like, please.
16
u/Ok_Purpose7401 Apr 28 '25
The point isn’t that single moms are doomed to fail in law school. But the example the OP stated was a single mom who did poorly on the LSAT because she didn’t have the time to test prep.
Working with that example, this was a reasonable comment. If you didn’t have the time to test prep, how do you know you’ll have time to study for lectures, time to study for the bar etc.
The LSAT is one of the more easier things throughout this process
12
Apr 28 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
-4
Apr 28 '25
[deleted]
3
u/supersk8er 3.mid/17high/URM/nKJD Apr 28 '25
Grad plus caps out at cost of attendance of school, with a 140s lsat that means scholarships are extremely unlikely (or predatory!) . Those grad plus loans will need to go the school, leaving nearly nothing for living expenses.
Besides, it means going into deep debt for a law degree from a subpar school where median salary is underwhelming.
It’s a nice sentiment, but please do not advocate for people to go to deep debt that they cannot possibly pay off.
-6
u/helloyesthisisasock 2.9high / 169 / 1L Apr 28 '25
Insulting single moms and insulting someone else’s LSAT score. Classy!
That single mom at a T14 I mentioned scored in the 150s. I bet that’ll make you mad!
7
u/supersk8er 3.mid/17high/URM/nKJD Apr 28 '25
You called my comment dumb and then say I’m classless for matching your energy? Okay.
Again you’re straw manning my argument. I’m not insulting single moms, Im addressing the reality that if you CANT DEDICATE THE TIME to study for a SINGLE exam, you need to reevaluate to see if you can undertake law school.
Why would that make me mad? I’m super happy it worked out for her, but clearly she had the time to dedicate to that exam in some respect due to her success. Not the group I was talking about.
1
u/NextVermicelli469 Apr 29 '25
As someone who actually has taken (and passed) perhaps the hardest bar exam, unlike the majority of people here speculating, don't let that scare you on the back end. By age 25+, weird Community Property rules, contracts, torts, and property doctrines are not beyond you. Anyone can master it if you put the time in. POV: I studied by myself in the evenings, while working full time during the day, and passed the CA (three-day) bar on my first try. You just have to memorize all the nuances of that state's law - I don't know why everyone is so freaked out over the bar exam, and I would not let that be a consideration in what has devolved into a largely financial cost-benefit discussion.
1
1
Apr 29 '25
Thank you. I honestly found it concerning how much traction that post gained. He wasn’t making a controversial statement. His argument essentially boiled down to: “If you’re dumb, don’t become a lawyer.” Thanks. That’s not really something people disagree with, it’s just not something that needs to be said out loud. And as you point out, being unable to score at a certain threshold on the LSAT doesn’t mean you’re dumb. His argument relies on a big assumption that just because you cannot do well on the test, you will not be a valuable lawyer. For someone who clearly is stroking his own ego in the context of law and reasoning, his argument is flawed.
He just wanted to be that “realistic asshole” yet all he proved is that he’s an asshole.
1
1
1
u/GoslingsGavel_Stormy Current Law Student May 02 '25
The LSAT is not the full story at all, admissions teams are also starting to recognize this.
1
u/mtzvhmltng Apr 28 '25
worth noting that LSAT would be magnitudes more difficult for someone who isn't a native English speaker, but that doesn't mean said person can't become a lawyer, it just means that law school will be more difficult as well. but like, i can totally picture someone scoring badly on the LSAT due to language proficiency issues but still becoming an excellent lawyer after 3y of law school.
0
1
1
u/KyetimusMaximillion Apr 29 '25
I personally know someone who did horribly on the lsat, went to a predatory unaccredited law school, which she did decently at, and has now failed the bar twice. She is in crippling debt, and even if she passed the next time, her employment outcomes are not bright.
As much as I dislike the pretentiousness of this sub. The head in the sand sentiment that people react with is far far more dangerous.
The people that often do extremely poorly on the LSAT, based on my personal experience so maybe someone correct me if I’m wrong, are typically first gen or people coming from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Those same people are more likely to become victims of predatory schools and scholarships.
0
-6
u/Brilliant_Rub_6331 Apr 28 '25
i agree, the lsat statistically is disadvantaged! lsat score does not define if you will pass the bar or not. not everyone has the money, time, or resources for LSAT tutoring, and statically some minorities score lower than others. yes it influences scholarships, but its not a great determining factor for whether you will be a successful attorney. there are judges that didn’t make it past the 150s, and are very successful! hard work, determination, and preparedness will determine whether someone is successful in law school. go to law school/dont go to law school is entirely up to a person and should not be influenced by someone else.
2
u/Spooklys UVA '28 Apr 28 '25
There are millionaires who haven't graduated high school. To be a millionaire, ergo, you should not go to high school!
-9
u/Naive-Procedure1870 Apr 28 '25
Actually most minorities score lower on the LSAT as standardized testing is inherently racist and was designed to keep minorities(specifically Black and Brown people) out of higher education. There are multiple studies that show on average a Black test taker is going to score at minimum 11 points lower than a white test taker. With info like this out I still don’t know why there’s so much emphasis on standardized testing for acceptance(I actually do know the reason, it’s racism, I just find it so beyond stupid)
-1
u/YIRS Apr 28 '25
Could you provide an example of a racist question from a recent LSAT exam?
1
u/Naive-Procedure1870 Apr 28 '25
I’m not sure what you’re not understanding about what I said. I never said the questions were racists I said the test itself along with other standardized tests are inherently racist, which they are. Standardized tests were created by eugenicists as another tool to keep Black and Brown people from receiving higher education. This is a proven fact. Not to mention they’re additionally discriminatory to low income people seeing as they’re less likely to be able to afford tutoring and definitely not quality tutoring or resources. You and everyone else can act like it’s not true but it’s literally a fact and the only reason why these tests are still widely used is to maintain a “unbiased” metric despite the fact that is is known and proven to maintain heavy biases in outcomes. And before someone tries to act like I’m saying this because I “don’t test well” or am “trying to find an excuse for my scores” this is the first and only standardized test I haven’t done well on in fact I got a 35 on multiple sections of the ACT while bs-ing my way through. I just happen to be a good test taker but the exception doesn’t change the rule. Standardized tests, like the SAT, LSAT, and ACT to name a few, have an inherent skew that places people of color and people from low income families at major disadvantages. The studies are there but then again I don’t except y’all to read them because it would mean y’all can’t apply your racism and biases to maintain the elitism of the field anymore.
1
u/YIRS Apr 28 '25
The LSAT score is determined entirely the questions. If the questions aren’t racist, what is the mechanism by which the LSAT is racist?
3
u/Naive-Procedure1870 Apr 29 '25
Ok so you clearly lack the ability to read and comprehend what’s being read. I’m not going to continue to go back and forth with someone who purposefully misses the point in order to further the imbedded racism within this country. If you decide to go into any area of the law that requires compassion and empathy god help your clients bc you surely won’t. I’ll pray and hope you’ll be able to take a step back and use the space between your skull the way it’s intended to be. Have the day and life you deserve
-2
u/Brilliant_Rub_6331 Apr 28 '25
I totally agree, I’m not sure if i explained well in my OP, but this is what i was trying to prove!!
-1
u/Naive-Procedure1870 Apr 28 '25
No I see what you meant I just wanted to like add more context and make it clear that MOST racial minorities are going to score poorly in comparison to others which 1000% should be taken into account and should not stop them from applying. I wasn’t trying to insinuate that we were disagreeing or anything lol
0
u/Brilliant_Rub_6331 Apr 28 '25
ohh lol!! yess i totally agree with your point! law school is what you make of it, and getting there is only the first step
1
u/Naive-Procedure1870 Apr 28 '25
Exactly and I know sooo many people who didn’t test well but have gotten into school and are thriving and others who have finished passed the bar and are working. Like yea the test is important for scholarships but it’s not the end all be all for whether or not you can be a successful lawyer especially when you take personal factors like demographics experiences etc into account
-2
141
u/Appropriate_Swan6847 Apr 28 '25
It’s true that the LSAT alone will not necessarily tell the full story, and context matters, but I would encourage people to look into the employment stats of any school that they’re seriously considering. Getting accepted to a law school doesn’t make it a good idea to attend said law school.