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.
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.
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!
One more bone to pick...Harvard says that it wants to accept the GRE to help students defray costs associated with admissions tests. It's true that prepping well for the LSAT is hard, time-consuming, and expensive. It's not accessible to many people.
But...Harvard tuition is still like...almost 200 grand? And they don't distribute merit aid. So eliminating the money necessary for LSAT preparation doesn't really do that much to make law school more accessible imo, unless you can get need-based aid that covers almost all expenses.
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!
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.
Ermmmm- from a person that took the GRE, studied maybe a month while half assing it, and received a high score how in the hell can this justify application into law school?
As flawed and frustrating as the LSAT process is....I'm really confused as to how on earth this is going to work?
I haven't taken the GRE, but I think that for most people it would take substantially less work to earn a 99th percentile GRE score than a 99th percentile LSAT score. This doesn't apply to Harvard, but how would law schools accepting the GRE/LSAT decide to distribute merit aid? The LSAT and GRE are not the same test, even if they might predict law school outcomes in similar ways.
I think like 10 years ago or something there were "too many" people applying to law school. Then the economy tanked and lawyers were screwed...Not trying to be elitist here but do we really need more people applying to law schools? Should we really be creating a system where there are enough people aspiring to be lawyers that third and fourth tier schools are necessary...? I think that accepting the GRE would amplify this problem. I'm with the poster above, not super optimistic here.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Just wondering how well-designed the empirical study was- it said that "... science, technology, engineering and math backgrounds. For these students, international students, multidisciplinary scholars, and joint-degree students, the GRE is a familiar and accessible test"
There could be endogeneity issue and the GRE is not necessarily the predictor of first-year success... Just my two cents :p
Moreover, this i think is continuing the general trend. There was a time when B-School would only take GMAT. Now almost every B-School takes GRE and B-School applicants have a choice to choose between GRE and GMAT.
I wonder if they will take both sections of GRE (Verbal and Quantitative) or just Verbal. I think both like most grad schools do. But this gives significant advantage to people who a more savvy quantitatively.
I could see this making admission to Harvard and law school in general more difficult. Students who took the GRE but did not want to study again for the LSAT will now apply and I would assume some will gain admission. This will push more applicants to other schools and ultimately ensure fewer spots for students throughout the T14 and on down.
45 comments
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.
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.
@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)
welp, burning all things LSAT and getting a prep book for the GRE
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!
One more bone to pick...Harvard says that it wants to accept the GRE to help students defray costs associated with admissions tests. It's true that prepping well for the LSAT is hard, time-consuming, and expensive. It's not accessible to many people.
But...Harvard tuition is still like...almost 200 grand? And they don't distribute merit aid. So eliminating the money necessary for LSAT preparation doesn't really do that much to make law school more accessible imo, unless you can get need-based aid that covers almost all expenses.
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!
LSAT all the way. I can't stand the GRE. Too much math!!! As in there's math!
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.
Ermmmm- from a person that took the GRE, studied maybe a month while half assing it, and received a high score how in the hell can this justify application into law school?
As flawed and frustrating as the LSAT process is....I'm really confused as to how on earth this is going to work?
I haven't taken the GRE, but I think that for most people it would take substantially less work to earn a 99th percentile GRE score than a 99th percentile LSAT score. This doesn't apply to Harvard, but how would law schools accepting the GRE/LSAT decide to distribute merit aid? The LSAT and GRE are not the same test, even if they might predict law school outcomes in similar ways.
I think like 10 years ago or something there were "too many" people applying to law school. Then the economy tanked and lawyers were screwed...Not trying to be elitist here but do we really need more people applying to law schools? Should we really be creating a system where there are enough people aspiring to be lawyers that third and fourth tier schools are necessary...? I think that accepting the GRE would amplify this problem. I'm with the poster above, not super optimistic here.
@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
;)
@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'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....
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.
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?
Just wondering how well-designed the empirical study was- it said that "... science, technology, engineering and math backgrounds. For these students, international students, multidisciplinary scholars, and joint-degree students, the GRE is a familiar and accessible test"
There could be endogeneity issue and the GRE is not necessarily the predictor of first-year success... Just my two cents :p
So is the GRE Quant section much harder than Logic Games haha?
Moreover, this i think is continuing the general trend. There was a time when B-School would only take GMAT. Now almost every B-School takes GRE and B-School applicants have a choice to choose between GRE and GMAT.
I wonder if they will take both sections of GRE (Verbal and Quantitative) or just Verbal. I think both like most grad schools do. But this gives significant advantage to people who a more savvy quantitatively.
Hahaha love the poll.
Well... there have been rumblings that the GRE would eventually replace the LSAT
I could see this making admission to Harvard and law school in general more difficult. Students who took the GRE but did not want to study again for the LSAT will now apply and I would assume some will gain admission. This will push more applicants to other schools and ultimately ensure fewer spots for students throughout the T14 and on down.
That's my hypothesis anyway.
I'm not optimistic about the change.