Wow. We're at the cusp of things really changing, it seems. I bet schools would love more numbers to choose from. And, of course, the LSAT may be going digital. Crazy times.
The USPTO Registration Exam (a.k.a. the "Patent Bar") went digital over ten years ago. Today if you want to pass that test, it is typically computer administered by Prometric at one their test sites. One can still choose to take a traditional paper test, but you can only take the paper version in their offices at Alexandira, VA. There is no benefit to taking the paper version. (Btw, for those interested in a career in IP law, the USPTO no longer allows past exams to be published, in fact one must sign a NDA swearing to never disclose the content of the test questions!) A long time ago, one could do well by studying old exams, these days that is impossible since there are no old exams to review. To the point of the nature of the exam, twenty five years ago, one was expected to write claims based on a test-supplied narrative; now it is strictly picking one out of five answers, just like the LSAT; and yes, the test is brutal. The only upside is that you can take it as many time until you pass, much like a state bar exam.
As for the acceptance of GRE's, yes, I agree, this is an incredible "dumming-down" of a valuable entry criteria. I can see in the near future, the LSAT will be a Prometric administrated test. The upside is that one can schedule a test date of ones own choosing, rather than being restricted to a fixed quarterly schedule as currently offered by the LSAC.
I think other schools will wait to see what this does to Harvard's ranking next year... theoretically if US News does nothing to adjust for this then Harvard could easily game their lsat median by replacing low lsat scores with GRE scores... and Harvard has a lot of clout in the ABA so I would be surprised if they did something to go against them without a significant amount of pushback...
On another note, the lsat has been shown to correlate with 1L performance, and to bar passage rates to a lesser extent (it is exceedingly hard to pass the bar if you did not get above a 150 on the lsat)... I haven't seen any studies concerning the GRE and actual performance in law school and beyond but Harvard can go out on a limb like this and it really won't matter to them...
I can confirm from my own experiences that these two tests are not equal in terms of difficulty.
I took the GRE when I was 21 without having studied at all for it and without even knowing the format of the test. I received near perfect scores and became a tutor for the test.
I have studied the LSAT on and off for about 5 years, fully devoted myself to it starting from last year, taken the test multiple times, and have not been able to get past a 168 in an official sitting.
It seems that many other posters also agree that the GRE is a much easier test. While I don't know the exact numbers, there are more people who take the GRE each year, meaning that there are more 99th+ percentile scorers for the GRE than there are for the LSAT. These two premises combined lead us to the conclusion that, should HLS go through with this completely and treat both tests the same (which the wording implies), then it is simply no longer worth it to take the LSAT unless you have a natural affinity for the test.
As noted by earlier posters, the ripple effects of this change won't be felt for years, and the burden that it brings will likely fall upon the next generation of applicants. This will also have an effect on 7sage as a business as well, unless JY and his crew start tapping into the GRE market as well.
So the article on the HLS website states: "The ABA is currently reviewing possible changes to rules governing which tests law schools may use in making admissions decisions."
Will the ABA's decision affect this pilot project? Also any idea as to which way the wind is blowing? Is the ABA looking to make the LSAT non-mandatory?
I read about that recently and I think this may have to do with it. The ABA and LSAC are in a bit of a spat right now because LSAC certifies the LSAT scores and does not want to (or something like that; someone correct me if I'm wrong). If there were changes coming I don't think it would be for about 2 years or so but there are rumblings happening and (puts on tin foil hat) this may be HLS trying to get ahead of the curve.
Harvard Law admissions stated in their FAQ that if you have both LSAT and GRE scores on file that they will report your LSAT to the ABA. Im assuming this means that scoring relatively higher in the GRE won't offset a lower LSAT
So the article on the HLS website states: "The ABA is currently reviewing possible changes to rules governing which tests law schools may use in making admissions decisions."
Will the ABA's decision affect this pilot project? Also any idea as to which way the wind is blowing? Is the ABA looking to make the LSAT non-mandatory?
I'm very curious to see what happens. I definitely would NOT jump ship to apply with a GRE score because we don't know the size of their "pilot program" (not to mention most law schools still having the LSAT requirement)--- Interesting times for sure!
It's not a restricted pilot program for a lucky few, they're openly saying that they will no longer require the LSAT for admission, for ALL applicants in Fall 2017. There's a very big difference. I do really believe that this is a huge domino, and I anticipate a lot of other schools - quite possibly a few in the T14 - following suit very quickly.
But we do not have enough information about this to say the LSAT isn't necessary for most applicants. We don't know how many applicants HLS is willing to take with solely a GRE score nor do we know like @stephencarpinello514 said, the achievements of those who could be admitted with solely a GRE score. HLS specifically said they will also allow the GRE for admission, not that the LSAT is no longer required for most applicants (then Dean Minow goes on to describe the type of GRE applicants they hope to be able to attract). I highly doubt this means the LSAT is suddenly a metric their admissions office will now treat as interchangeable with the GRE for applicants who do not have those attributes described in the 4th paragraph.
What if some t14 schools decide not to follow HLS? Essentially, I think it's not a great idea to look at this news as the way into a t14 law school when we don't have enough information. We don't have data on how many people will apply under HLS's new program and how many will be admitted under it. I agree with Stevie and I think this is a way to attract a more diverse range of candidates (in terms of experience, academics, achievements etc). This diversifies and increases their applicant pool and if anything gives me another reason to perform better on the LSAT. I could be proven wrong after we see what happens in the next application cycle, but I would not bank on this making more traditional law school applicants suddenly more competitive at HLS with a great GRE score, unless you were already that kind of applicant HLS was trying to attract anyway. It'll be interesting to see the kind of profile/experience the students admitted under this program will have.
If all someone has going for them is a 99th percentile GRE and a 4.0 --- then I wouldn't bet on them getting in.
This makes alot of sense. I know the policy of the Arizona Law school is that in order to submit your GRE scores in lieu of your LSAT, you needed to not have taken the LSAT before.
With that said, I do think getting into HLS is about to become more competitive. Among the hordes of people who've taken the GRE, there are surely a lot of exceptional individuals who any law school would like to enroll.
The main issue IMO is that about 5x as many people take the GRE as the LSAT. Now we're competing with a much larger pool of people. After they pluck the best and brightest from the GRE-only group, the rest of admissions should proceed as usual. The only difference is that there will be fewer spots to go around for the LSAT folks...
I'm very curious to see what happens. I definitely would NOT jump ship to apply with a GRE score because we don't know the size of their "pilot program" (not to mention most law schools still having the LSAT requirement)--- Interesting times for sure!
It's not a restricted pilot program for a lucky few, they're openly saying that they will no longer require the LSAT for admission, for ALL applicants in Fall 2017. There's a very big difference. I do really believe that this is a huge domino, and I anticipate a lot of other schools - quite possibly a few in the T14 - following suit very quickly.
I'm in favor of abolishing standardized test taking and going more for what English schools do: heavily weighting reputation of school in conjunction with GPA, recommendation letters, and statement of purpose.
Ok back to studying....
Which would leave people who have graduated from average schools with below par GPA's but have showed post-undergrad turnarounds (solid work experience, stellar self-study habits) rather disadvantaged. The LSAT (or GRE) can provide an excellent and sometimes more up-to-date reflection of a student in the present tense...
For some, myself included, it's one of the few assets left that they/I feel can bank on.
I edited my post after first submitting it to include: "or at least giving the option to apply without"
"I'm in favor of abolishing standardized test taking (or at least giving the option to apply without) and going more for what English schools do:"
I'm in favor of abolishing standardized test taking and going more for what English schools do: heavily weighting reputation of school in conjunction with GPA, recommendation letters, and statement of purpose.
Ok back to studying....
Which would leave people who have graduated from average schools with below par GPA's but have showed post-undergrad turnarounds (solid work experience, stellar self-study habits) rather disadvantaged. The LSAT (or GRE) can provide an excellent and sometimes more up-to-date reflection of a student in the present tense...
For some, myself included, it's one of the few assets left that they/I feel can bank on.
Just saying.... some people do absolutely terrible on standardized tests no matter how much time and effort they put into studying and still do phenomenally well in college / grad programs. This over emphasis on test scores benefits certain types of learning and harms those who make up for deficiencies, when in the respective programs, with other attributes that aren't tested in standardized tests. Making one test nearly 50% of your application is short sighted and not truly meritocratic, which should be the goal of admissions.
I'm in favor of abolishing standardized test taking (or at least giving the option to apply without) and going more for what English schools do: heavily weighting reputation of school in conjunction with GPA, recommendation letters, and statement of purpose. Granted, the flaw in this is rampant grade inflation at some of the best schools in the country.
This is a step in the right direction, but they should take it further and acknowledge the flaws in standardized tests that preclude many otherwise qualified students from assuming their potential positions in school and in society.
LSAT will still be heavily weighted into LS rankings. If you're a normal applicant, you'll still need a high LSAT score to get into HLS.
What this policy allows HLS to do is accept certain URMs, well-connected individuals, and others (ex-military, Olympian, refugee, [insert other impressive life experience here]) without dragging down their LSAT average.
If all someone has going for them is a 99th percentile GRE and a 4.0 --- then I wouldn't bet on them getting in.
This makes alot of sense. I know the policy of the Arizona Law school is that in order to submit your GRE scores in lieu of your LSAT, you needed to not have taken the LSAT before.
Honestly, I'm really excited about this change. I took in December, re-taking in June, but I feel like this takes a lot of pressure off (I've studied for the GRE before and have a few books, and it is indeed a far easier and more straightforward exam), especially for anyone like myself who is strongly leaning towards a joint degree (JD-MPP) and would have had to take the GRE anyway. No matter what now, I'm not going to retake the LSAT in September and will shift to GRE after June. You get no more of my money, LSAC!
I figure it definitely is good as it will force LSAC to change (hopefully for the better).
However, I am really curious as to what kind of GRE scores will lead to admittance. Surely the 99th percentile.
Honestly, I'm really excited about this change. I took in December, re-taking in June, but I feel like this takes a lot of pressure off (I've studied for the GRE before and have a few books, and it is indeed a far easier and more straightforward exam), especially for anyone like myself who is strongly leaning towards a joint degree (JD-MPP) and would have had to take the GRE anyway. No matter what now, I'm not going to retake the LSAT in September and will shift to GRE after June. You get no more of my money, LSAC!
I think it's interesting that a lot of the comments under the articles announcing this yesterday and in this thread points to boosting URM admissions as this policy's rationale. Although I think that could certainly be a factor, it's important to also stick to HLS's stated intent, which is to get more STEM, international, and other students studying for the GRE to apply to law school. I think that it's hard to read into this too too much, but of course it's great in that it gives more options for incoming students to study for different tests. I think what they are saying about admissions is just that though -- that this will give a chance for more students to apply, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it will be harder or easier to get in for any one group since there should be more factors than just the LSAT and your GPA in admissions.
LSAT will still be heavily weighted into LS rankings. If you're a normal applicant, you'll still need a high LSAT score to get into HLS.
What this policy allows HLS to do is accept certain URMs, well-connected individuals, and others (ex-military, Olympian, refugee, [insert other impressive life experience here]) without dragging down their LSAT average.
If all someone has going for them is a 99th percentile GRE and a 4.0 --- then I wouldn't bet on them getting in.
Agreed that this seems to follow the trend of business schools accepting the GRE instead of GMAT. However, I believe the way it plays out will also be similar and still offer significant advantage to submitting an LSAT score. For example, my understanding is that schools such as UChicago, Wharton and GSB at Stanford are very concerned when candidates do not submit the GMAT as that is more quantitatively challenging than the GRE. Therefore, foregoing the GMAT implicitly can be harmful to your application. The same will hold for the LSAT, compounded by many schools admissions bias toward LSAT scores above most other factors.
Secondly, some are uncertain about the reasonableness of widening the applicant pool given the well-known employment issues in law. Save for schools that are concerned about the employment stats for their students, as a business decision this does make sense. The incentive is for the school to increase their potential customer base and then to leverage those applicants for 1) tuition money (more people applying means more people potentially willing to pay full tuition) and 2) to use the greater number of applicants to reduce their acceptance rate and increase their average reported LSAT score, therefore being considered more selective and also increasing their ranking in the USNWR ranking methodology.
0
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
45 comments
@danielznelson160 said:
Wow. We're at the cusp of things really changing, it seems. I bet schools would love more numbers to choose from. And, of course, the LSAT may be going digital. Crazy times.
The USPTO Registration Exam (a.k.a. the "Patent Bar") went digital over ten years ago. Today if you want to pass that test, it is typically computer administered by Prometric at one their test sites. One can still choose to take a traditional paper test, but you can only take the paper version in their offices at Alexandira, VA. There is no benefit to taking the paper version. (Btw, for those interested in a career in IP law, the USPTO no longer allows past exams to be published, in fact one must sign a NDA swearing to never disclose the content of the test questions!) A long time ago, one could do well by studying old exams, these days that is impossible since there are no old exams to review. To the point of the nature of the exam, twenty five years ago, one was expected to write claims based on a test-supplied narrative; now it is strictly picking one out of five answers, just like the LSAT; and yes, the test is brutal. The only upside is that you can take it as many time until you pass, much like a state bar exam.
As for the acceptance of GRE's, yes, I agree, this is an incredible "dumming-down" of a valuable entry criteria. I can see in the near future, the LSAT will be a Prometric administrated test. The upside is that one can schedule a test date of ones own choosing, rather than being restricted to a fixed quarterly schedule as currently offered by the LSAC.
I think other schools will wait to see what this does to Harvard's ranking next year... theoretically if US News does nothing to adjust for this then Harvard could easily game their lsat median by replacing low lsat scores with GRE scores... and Harvard has a lot of clout in the ABA so I would be surprised if they did something to go against them without a significant amount of pushback...
On another note, the lsat has been shown to correlate with 1L performance, and to bar passage rates to a lesser extent (it is exceedingly hard to pass the bar if you did not get above a 150 on the lsat)... I haven't seen any studies concerning the GRE and actual performance in law school and beyond but Harvard can go out on a limb like this and it really won't matter to them...
@nessak130467 said:
The real question is this - how many other law schools currently accept the GRE? I think ASU does... but not sure any others do...
I believe those are the only two schools.
The real question is this - how many other law schools currently accept the GRE? I think ASU does... but not sure any others do...
LSAT all the way. I can't stand the GRE. Too much math!!! As in there's math!
I can confirm from my own experiences that these two tests are not equal in terms of difficulty.
I took the GRE when I was 21 without having studied at all for it and without even knowing the format of the test. I received near perfect scores and became a tutor for the test.
I have studied the LSAT on and off for about 5 years, fully devoted myself to it starting from last year, taken the test multiple times, and have not been able to get past a 168 in an official sitting.
It seems that many other posters also agree that the GRE is a much easier test. While I don't know the exact numbers, there are more people who take the GRE each year, meaning that there are more 99th+ percentile scorers for the GRE than there are for the LSAT. These two premises combined lead us to the conclusion that, should HLS go through with this completely and treat both tests the same (which the wording implies), then it is simply no longer worth it to take the LSAT unless you have a natural affinity for the test.
As noted by earlier posters, the ripple effects of this change won't be felt for years, and the burden that it brings will likely fall upon the next generation of applicants. This will also have an effect on 7sage as a business as well, unless JY and his crew start tapping into the GRE market as well.
@dankbyrne113 said:
@7sagestudentservices
Can we get a Q&A/Webinar with a couple Harvard Law admissions officers to clear this up?
If not, I'm sure 7Sagers would settle for Harvard Law Dean Martha Minow. Either or
;)
HA! Yeah, let me just get on those Harvard connections.........
http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/2013/03/computing.gif
(jk I don't have any connections)
@conraddnoronha90 said:
So the article on the HLS website states: "The ABA is currently reviewing possible changes to rules governing which tests law schools may use in making admissions decisions."
Will the ABA's decision affect this pilot project? Also any idea as to which way the wind is blowing? Is the ABA looking to make the LSAT non-mandatory?
I read about that recently and I think this may have to do with it. The ABA and LSAC are in a bit of a spat right now because LSAC certifies the LSAT scores and does not want to (or something like that; someone correct me if I'm wrong). If there were changes coming I don't think it would be for about 2 years or so but there are rumblings happening and (puts on tin foil hat) this may be HLS trying to get ahead of the curve.
@7sagestudentservices
Can we get a Q&A/Webinar with a couple Harvard Law admissions officers to clear this up?
If not, I'm sure 7Sagers would settle for Harvard Law Dean Martha Minow. Either or
;)
Harvard Law admissions stated in their FAQ that if you have both LSAT and GRE scores on file that they will report your LSAT to the ABA. Im assuming this means that scoring relatively higher in the GRE won't offset a lower LSAT
So the article on the HLS website states: "The ABA is currently reviewing possible changes to rules governing which tests law schools may use in making admissions decisions."
Will the ABA's decision affect this pilot project? Also any idea as to which way the wind is blowing? Is the ABA looking to make the LSAT non-mandatory?
@dantlee14842 said:
@nessak130467 said:
I'm very curious to see what happens. I definitely would NOT jump ship to apply with a GRE score because we don't know the size of their "pilot program" (not to mention most law schools still having the LSAT requirement)--- Interesting times for sure!
It's not a restricted pilot program for a lucky few, they're openly saying that they will no longer require the LSAT for admission, for ALL applicants in Fall 2017. There's a very big difference. I do really believe that this is a huge domino, and I anticipate a lot of other schools - quite possibly a few in the T14 - following suit very quickly.
But we do not have enough information about this to say the LSAT isn't necessary for most applicants. We don't know how many applicants HLS is willing to take with solely a GRE score nor do we know like @stephencarpinello514 said, the achievements of those who could be admitted with solely a GRE score. HLS specifically said they will also allow the GRE for admission, not that the LSAT is no longer required for most applicants (then Dean Minow goes on to describe the type of GRE applicants they hope to be able to attract). I highly doubt this means the LSAT is suddenly a metric their admissions office will now treat as interchangeable with the GRE for applicants who do not have those attributes described in the 4th paragraph.
What if some t14 schools decide not to follow HLS? Essentially, I think it's not a great idea to look at this news as the way into a t14 law school when we don't have enough information. We don't have data on how many people will apply under HLS's new program and how many will be admitted under it. I agree with Stevie and I think this is a way to attract a more diverse range of candidates (in terms of experience, academics, achievements etc). This diversifies and increases their applicant pool and if anything gives me another reason to perform better on the LSAT. I could be proven wrong after we see what happens in the next application cycle, but I would not bank on this making more traditional law school applicants suddenly more competitive at HLS with a great GRE score, unless you were already that kind of applicant HLS was trying to attract anyway. It'll be interesting to see the kind of profile/experience the students admitted under this program will have.
@dantlee14842 said:
If all someone has going for them is a 99th percentile GRE and a 4.0 --- then I wouldn't bet on them getting in.
This makes alot of sense. I know the policy of the Arizona Law school is that in order to submit your GRE scores in lieu of your LSAT, you needed to not have taken the LSAT before.
With that said, I do think getting into HLS is about to become more competitive. Among the hordes of people who've taken the GRE, there are surely a lot of exceptional individuals who any law school would like to enroll.
The main issue IMO is that about 5x as many people take the GRE as the LSAT. Now we're competing with a much larger pool of people. After they pluck the best and brightest from the GRE-only group, the rest of admissions should proceed as usual. The only difference is that there will be fewer spots to go around for the LSAT folks...
@nessak130467 said:
I'm very curious to see what happens. I definitely would NOT jump ship to apply with a GRE score because we don't know the size of their "pilot program" (not to mention most law schools still having the LSAT requirement)--- Interesting times for sure!
It's not a restricted pilot program for a lucky few, they're openly saying that they will no longer require the LSAT for admission, for ALL applicants in Fall 2017. There's a very big difference. I do really believe that this is a huge domino, and I anticipate a lot of other schools - quite possibly a few in the T14 - following suit very quickly.
@connorradlo44 said:
I edited my post after first submitting it to include: "or at least giving the option to apply without"
"I'm in favor of abolishing standardized test taking (or at least giving the option to apply without) and going more for what English schools do:"
Fair enough :)
@conraddnoronha90 said:
@connorradlo44 said:
I'm in favor of abolishing standardized test taking and going more for what English schools do: heavily weighting reputation of school in conjunction with GPA, recommendation letters, and statement of purpose.
Ok back to studying....
Which would leave people who have graduated from average schools with below par GPA's but have showed post-undergrad turnarounds (solid work experience, stellar self-study habits) rather disadvantaged. The LSAT (or GRE) can provide an excellent and sometimes more up-to-date reflection of a student in the present tense...
For some, myself included, it's one of the few assets left that they/I feel can bank on.
I edited my post after first submitting it to include: "or at least giving the option to apply without"
"I'm in favor of abolishing standardized test taking (or at least giving the option to apply without) and going more for what English schools do:"
@connorradlo44 said:
I'm in favor of abolishing standardized test taking and going more for what English schools do: heavily weighting reputation of school in conjunction with GPA, recommendation letters, and statement of purpose.
Ok back to studying....
Which would leave people who have graduated from average schools with below par GPA's but have showed post-undergrad turnarounds (solid work experience, stellar self-study habits) rather disadvantaged. The LSAT (or GRE) can provide an excellent and sometimes more up-to-date reflection of a student in the present tense...
For some, myself included, it's one of the few assets left that they/I feel can bank on.
Just saying.... some people do absolutely terrible on standardized tests no matter how much time and effort they put into studying and still do phenomenally well in college / grad programs. This over emphasis on test scores benefits certain types of learning and harms those who make up for deficiencies, when in the respective programs, with other attributes that aren't tested in standardized tests. Making one test nearly 50% of your application is short sighted and not truly meritocratic, which should be the goal of admissions.
I'm in favor of abolishing standardized test taking (or at least giving the option to apply without) and going more for what English schools do: heavily weighting reputation of school in conjunction with GPA, recommendation letters, and statement of purpose. Granted, the flaw in this is rampant grade inflation at some of the best schools in the country.
This is a step in the right direction, but they should take it further and acknowledge the flaws in standardized tests that preclude many otherwise qualified students from assuming their potential positions in school and in society.
Ok back to studying....
@stephencarpinello514 said:
LSAT will still be heavily weighted into LS rankings. If you're a normal applicant, you'll still need a high LSAT score to get into HLS.
What this policy allows HLS to do is accept certain URMs, well-connected individuals, and others (ex-military, Olympian, refugee, [insert other impressive life experience here]) without dragging down their LSAT average.
If all someone has going for them is a 99th percentile GRE and a 4.0 --- then I wouldn't bet on them getting in.
This makes alot of sense. I know the policy of the Arizona Law school is that in order to submit your GRE scores in lieu of your LSAT, you needed to not have taken the LSAT before.
.
I think it > @dantlee14842 said:
Honestly, I'm really excited about this change. I took in December, re-taking in June, but I feel like this takes a lot of pressure off (I've studied for the GRE before and have a few books, and it is indeed a far easier and more straightforward exam), especially for anyone like myself who is strongly leaning towards a joint degree (JD-MPP) and would have had to take the GRE anyway. No matter what now, I'm not going to retake the LSAT in September and will shift to GRE after June. You get no more of my money, LSAC!
I figure it definitely is good as it will force LSAC to change (hopefully for the better).
However, I am really curious as to what kind of GRE scores will lead to admittance. Surely the 99th percentile.
Honestly, I'm really excited about this change. I took in December, re-taking in June, but I feel like this takes a lot of pressure off (I've studied for the GRE before and have a few books, and it is indeed a far easier and more straightforward exam), especially for anyone like myself who is strongly leaning towards a joint degree (JD-MPP) and would have had to take the GRE anyway. No matter what now, I'm not going to retake the LSAT in September and will shift to GRE after June. You get no more of my money, LSAC!
I think it's interesting that a lot of the comments under the articles announcing this yesterday and in this thread points to boosting URM admissions as this policy's rationale. Although I think that could certainly be a factor, it's important to also stick to HLS's stated intent, which is to get more STEM, international, and other students studying for the GRE to apply to law school. I think that it's hard to read into this too too much, but of course it's great in that it gives more options for incoming students to study for different tests. I think what they are saying about admissions is just that though -- that this will give a chance for more students to apply, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it will be harder or easier to get in for any one group since there should be more factors than just the LSAT and your GPA in admissions.
LSAT will still be heavily weighted into LS rankings. If you're a normal applicant, you'll still need a high LSAT score to get into HLS.
What this policy allows HLS to do is accept certain URMs, well-connected individuals, and others (ex-military, Olympian, refugee, [insert other impressive life experience here]) without dragging down their LSAT average.
If all someone has going for them is a 99th percentile GRE and a 4.0 --- then I wouldn't bet on them getting in.
Will this change anything for people who are applying with just their LSAT score this fall? I think people will start to apply with both :neutral:
Agreed that this seems to follow the trend of business schools accepting the GRE instead of GMAT. However, I believe the way it plays out will also be similar and still offer significant advantage to submitting an LSAT score. For example, my understanding is that schools such as UChicago, Wharton and GSB at Stanford are very concerned when candidates do not submit the GMAT as that is more quantitatively challenging than the GRE. Therefore, foregoing the GMAT implicitly can be harmful to your application. The same will hold for the LSAT, compounded by many schools admissions bias toward LSAT scores above most other factors.
Secondly, some are uncertain about the reasonableness of widening the applicant pool given the well-known employment issues in law. Save for schools that are concerned about the employment stats for their students, as a business decision this does make sense. The incentive is for the school to increase their potential customer base and then to leverage those applicants for 1) tuition money (more people applying means more people potentially willing to pay full tuition) and 2) to use the greater number of applicants to reduce their acceptance rate and increase their average reported LSAT score, therefore being considered more selective and also increasing their ranking in the USNWR ranking methodology.