Subscription pricing
Hey y'all,
We got an email from Dean Rodriguez this morning that provides in relevant part:
At Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, we are firmly committed to meeting the evolving needs of the profession, and this means constantly evaluating the law school experience. ... With this in mind, starting in Fall 2018, Northwestern Law will allow JD applicants to submit either the Graduate Record Examination (GRE) or the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT) for admission the following year (Fall 2019).
The GRE is a holistic exam that comprehensively evaluates qualitative and quantitative skills and is broadly accepted by thousands of graduate and professional degree programs, from biochemistry to public policy to philosophy. Gaining access to GRE test-takers, many of whom are engineers, scientists, and mathematicians, could benefit Northwestern Law and the legal profession at large by diversifying the applicant pool. Additionally, the GRE is offered a number of times throughout the year and in locations worldwide, making it easily accessible for prospective students.
This decision was made after careful evaluation, including a study conducted in conjunction with the Educational Testing Service (ETS), the organization that administers the GRE. In accordance with the American Bar Association (ABA) Standards for Legal Education, the study assessed whether the GRE is a valid predictor of first-year academic performance at Northwestern Law. Results showed that the GRE is in fact a strong predictor of first-year performance at Northwestern.
The ABA Council is currently reviewing its standards in regards to mandatory standardized tests required for law school admissions. ... In the end, we are optimistic that they will allow law schools greater flexibility in the admissions process, to the benefit of students, schools, and the profession alike.
Hopefully this will be of some encouragement and not distract you from your LSAT studies. LSAT remains the best preparation for the skills you need to succeed in law school. One of the reasons I've done well is because I'm super fast at assessing arguments and articulating assumptions: two skills you will not get from the GRE on its own. Also note that our JD-MBA program already accepts GMAT exclusively.
1
60 comments
@ji330 said:
@cam860 said:
The first question that popped into my mind is whether or not schools would require an LSAC GPA vs. degree GPA if the score being submitted is the GRE, or if application will still be completed via LSAC. I'm guessing LSAC GPA will still be used (even though myself and many others would love to be able to use the degree GPA).
Lol the difference for me would be a 2.7 to a 4.0.....that's pretty dramatic
Similar here. My max LSAC GPA is 2.9. I'm 11 classes (one calendar year) away from being done with undergrad, and should be finishing with a 3.7ish degree GPA since I screwed up royally during my first attempt at college (that ended about 9 years ago).
@71888 said:
I feel like schools are just low key taking GRE scores now to just let people with high GPAs in to boost their numbers
I'm totally in agreement. But, I think it should also be obvious that is bad for anyone without a high GPA or who has taken the LSAT.
@stepharizona288 said:
@nicole said:
@stepharizona288 said:
It seems to me that there are two possibilities here.
The LSAT is no better than the GRE at predicting law school success. This seems like a stunning failure. A specifically designed test for law school aptitude is no better at predicting law school success than a generic test which basically tests high school reading and math ability. How can this be? Is it our fault? Have people like us ruined the validity of the LSAT by studying for it like a job? Or was it never valid to begin with? That has to be an indictment of the people at LSAC? It is also kind of shocking to me since it feels like thevskills tested on the LSAT would be useful in the study of the law.
The other option is that the LSAT is better at predicting law school success than the GRE. If this is the case, then Harvard and Northwestern have either just made dramatic mistakes or are deliberately sacraficing the quality of their incoming classes in a sinister play to claw their way back up the rankings.
Actually, GRE scores as of yet will not be reported to US News. So either they replace all the low LSAT people with GRE people to inflate the rankings (unlikely—NU is quite reverse-splitter friendly as a complement to being splitter-friendly; they need high GPA people to offset low GPA/high LSAT people), to your point, or they (what I think is much more likely) admit candidates on an extremely selective basis without LSAT.
My prediction is that, unless US News changes its rankings algorithms to account for GRE score, HLS and NU will admit very few GRE-only folks. But the option will be there to make exceptions for exceptional candidates, likely with very high GPA's (again because we need high GPA's).
"Actually, GRE scores as of yet will not be reported to US News."
I'm confused as to how this conflicts with what I said.
The LSAT is still either a better predictor or not.
If not, that is pitiful and I blame LSAC. They had decades to get their act together.
If the LSAT is a better predictor, then when Harvard and Northwestern use the GRE as a run around to get people with high GPA's who are not capable of scoring well on the LSAT or unwilling to put in the effort to score well on the LSAT that still diminishes the quality of their entering classes.
"So either they replace all the low LSAT people with GRE people to inflate the rankings (unlikely—NU is quite reverse-splitter friendly as a complement to being splitter-friendly; they need high GPA people to offset low GPA/high LSAT people), to your point, or they (what I think is much more likely) admit candidates on an extremely selective basis without LSAT."
It seems likely to me that they will get rid of applicants with LSAT's near median and GPAs near median. They take people as you said with high GPAs and no LSAT (presumably high GRE's which are trivially easy to get). This bumps up their GPA median, meaning that these previously near median GPAs are now solidly below median.
But, you are right that it could hurt anyone, not just traditional applicants. Basically, Northwestern gets to admit LSAT free high GPAs. They do so as much as they can get away with filling up some of their seats. They then fill the smaller remaining portion of their class with traditional LSAT takers. Basically, they get the selectivity advantage (advantage for law schools; disadvantage for applicants) of shrinking their classes with the revenue stream of admitting a full class.
"My prediction is that, unless US News changes its rankings algorithms to account for GRE score, HLS and NU will admit very few GRE-only folks. But the option will be there to make exceptions for exceptional candidates, likely with very high GPA's (again because we need high GPA's)."
I think the number of GRE admits might be small while Northwestern and Harvard wait to see whether the ABA will stop them. They only want so much disruption and embarassment if the ABA does an actual study and rejects the GRE as a less effective predictor than the LSAT.
But, I don't think they are waiting for US News to count the GRE. They already get high GPA's with no attached LSAT score.
"(again because we need high GPA's)"
The law schools certainly do want people who wouldn't do well on The LSAT, but have high GPAs(and no attached LSAT score) to apply, fund them, and help them win the ranking game. For applicants it is usually far too late to control GPA.
Edit: I'm still not sure what you were getting at. Maybe, you were saying US News won't count the GRE applicant's GPA. If so the effect at Northwestern will be the same, but smaller.
Northwestern would get to admit people without numbers, charge them full freight and fill the smaller rest of their class with higher quality applicants. >
@stepharizona288
Don't sweat this. It will take a couple years for all the funky stuff to work itself out. By that time, you'll be in law school anyhow, and who cares what these admin people spend their time debating anyhow? All we should really care about is our acceptance letter and scholarship money.
My two friends went to Columbia Law. One person scored 165 and had a 3.75 GPA, and the other scored a 170 and had a 2.9 GPA. The one with the 170 LSAT represented Columbia at National Moot Court.
He is the one encouraging me to take the LSAT seriously because focusing on the test was a game changer for him in law school.
@71888 said:
I feel like schools are just low key taking GRE scores now to just let people with high GPAs in to boost their numbers
Yup! And like @nicole said and the Harvard email posted above supports, likely schools will be extremely selective with GRE admits. I'm guessing you'd need a near 4.0 and high GRE score.
I feel like schools are just low key taking GRE scores now to just let people with high GPAs in to boost their numbers
@nicole said:
@stepharizona288 said:
It seems to me that there are two possibilities here.
The LSAT is no better than the GRE at predicting law school success. This seems like a stunning failure. A specifically designed test for law school aptitude is no better at predicting law school success than a generic test which basically tests high school reading and math ability. How can this be? Is it our fault? Have people like us ruined the validity of the LSAT by studying for it like a job? Or was it never valid to begin with? That has to be an indictment of the people at LSAC? It is also kind of shocking to me since it feels like thevskills tested on the LSAT would be useful in the study of the law.
The other option is that the LSAT is better at predicting law school success than the GRE. If this is the case, then Harvard and Northwestern have either just made dramatic mistakes or are deliberately sacraficing the quality of their incoming classes in a sinister play to claw their way back up the rankings.
Actually, GRE scores as of yet will not be reported to US News. So either they replace all the low LSAT people with GRE people to inflate the rankings (unlikely—NU is quite reverse-splitter friendly as a complement to being splitter-friendly; they need high GPA people to offset low GPA/high LSAT people), to your point, or they (what I think is much more likely) admit candidates on an extremely selective basis without LSAT.
My prediction is that, unless US News changes its rankings algorithms to account for GRE score, HLS and NU will admit very few GRE-only folks. But the option will be there to make exceptions for exceptional candidates, likely with very high GPA's (again because we need high GPA's).
"Actually, GRE scores as of yet will not be reported to US News."
I'm confused as to how this conflicts with what I said.
The LSAT is still either a better predictor or not.
If not, that is pitiful and I blame LSAC. They had decades to get their act together.
If the LSAT is a better predictor, then when Harvard and Northwestern use the GRE as a run around to get people with high GPA's who are not capable of scoring well on the LSAT or unwilling to put in the effort to score well on the LSAT that still diminishes the quality of their entering classes.
"So either they replace all the low LSAT people with GRE people to inflate the rankings (unlikely—NU is quite reverse-splitter friendly as a complement to being splitter-friendly; they need high GPA people to offset low GPA/high LSAT people), to your point, or they (what I think is much more likely) admit candidates on an extremely selective basis without LSAT."
It seems likely to me that they will get rid of applicants with LSAT's near median and GPAs near median. They take people as you said with high GPAs and no LSAT (presumably high GRE's which are trivially easy to get). This bumps up their GPA median, meaning that these previously near median GPAs are now solidly below median.
But, you are right that it could hurt anyone, not just traditional applicants. Basically, Northwestern gets to admit LSAT free high GPAs. They do so as much as they can get away with filling up some of their seats. They then fill the smaller remaining portion of their class with traditional LSAT takers. Basically, they get the selectivity advantage (advantage for law schools; disadvantage for applicants) of shrinking their classes with the revenue stream of admitting a full class.
"My prediction is that, unless US News changes its rankings algorithms to account for GRE score, HLS and NU will admit very few GRE-only folks. But the option will be there to make exceptions for exceptional candidates, likely with very high GPA's (again because we need high GPA's)."
I think the number of GRE admits might be small while Northwestern and Harvard wait to see whether the ABA will stop them. They only want so much disruption and embarassment if the ABA does an actual study and rejects the GRE as a less effective predictor than the LSAT.
But, I don't think they are waiting for US News to count the GRE. They already get high GPA's with no attached LSAT score.
"(again because we need high GPA's)"
The law schools certainly do want people who wouldn't do well on The LSAT, but have high GPAs(and no attached LSAT score) to apply, fund them, and help them win the ranking game. For applicants it is usually far too late to control GPA.
Edit: I'm still not sure what you were getting at. Maybe, you were saying US News won't count the GRE applicant's GPA. If so the effect at Northwestern will be the same, but smaller.
Northwestern would get to admit people without numbers, charge them full freight and fill the smaller rest of their class with higher quality applicants.
LSAC threatened banning any school that uses other standardized tests from using their data base. Articles about his can be found on Above the Law. Monopolies tend to be very protective of their territories.
@cam860 said:
The first question that popped into my mind is whether or not schools would require an LSAC GPA vs. degree GPA if the score being submitted is the GRE, or if application will still be completed via LSAC. I'm guessing LSAC GPA will still be used (even though myself and many others would love to be able to use the degree GPA).
I think LSAC GPA's are still going to be what they look at. I would assume that people with a GRE score still apply via LSAC though, since that is the database, and GRE scores will prob just be on your account.
@tristandesinor505 said:
@96453 said:
@nicole said:
One of the reasons I've done well is because I'm super fast at assessing arguments and articulating assumptions: two skills you will not get from the GRE on its own >
@nicole @tristandesinor505 Ironically, Nicole's words gave me the kick in the pants I needed to get more serious about LSAT Prep. One of the reasons Nicole is successful in law school today is the 7Sage prep plan we've paid for and have committed our blood, sweat and tears to conquering. Here's to crushing the LSAT!!!
I agree. I feel the LSAT does better prepare you for actual Law School. Like you said, gives you a better kick in the pants to do well. :)
So true! -:)
@cam860 said:
The first question that popped into my mind is whether or not schools would require an LSAC GPA vs. degree GPA if the score being submitted is the GRE, or if application will still be completed via LSAC. I'm guessing LSAC GPA will still be used (even though myself and many others would love to be able to use the degree GPA).
Lol the difference for me would be a 2.7 to a 4.0.....that's pretty dramatic
The first question that popped into my mind is whether or not schools would require an LSAC GPA vs. degree GPA if the score being submitted is the GRE, or if application will still be completed via LSAC. I'm guessing LSAC GPA will still be used (even though myself and many others would love to be able to use the degree GPA).
@96453 said:
@nicole said:
One of the reasons I've done well is because I'm super fast at assessing arguments and articulating assumptions: two skills you will not get from the GRE on its own >
@nicole @tristandesinor505 Ironically, Nicole's words gave me the kick in the pants I needed to get more serious about LSAT Prep. One of the reasons Nicole is successful in law school today is the 7Sage prep plan we've paid for and have committed our blood, sweat and tears to conquering. Here's to crushing the LSAT!!!
I agree. I feel the LSAT does better prepare you for actual Law School. Like you said, gives you a better kick in the pants to do well. :)
@marine4life6798246 where was that picture taken?
@nicole Forgot the link: https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/council_reports_and_resolutions/comments/20170628_comment_s503_deans_miller_chemerinsky_rodriguez_morant_guzman_farnsworth.authcheckdam.pdf
@nicole > @nicole said:
@uhinberg359 said:
The ABA Council is currently reviewing its standards in regards to mandatory standardized tests required for law school admissions. ... In the end, we are optimistic that they will allow law schools greater flexibility in the admissions process, to the benefit of students, schools, and the profession alike.
Whoa! Does this mean that they are considering doing away with a requirement for any standardized test, and that Dean Rodriguez is optimistic that they will give law schools this flexibility?
No—standardized testing is necessary due to the wide variation between universities and majors and GPA standards.
@nicole See this document, signed by Dean Rodriguez. It does seem like he is advocating for the ABA not requiring any standardized test.
@stepharizona288 said:
It seems to me that there are two possibilities here.
The LSAT is no better than the GRE at predicting law school success. This seems like a stunning failure. A specifically designed test for law school aptitude is no better at predicting law school success than a generic test which basically tests high school reading and math ability. How can this be? Is it our fault? Have people like us ruined the validity of the LSAT by studying for it like a job? Or was it never valid to begin with? That has to be an indictment of the people at LSAC? It is also kind of shocking to me since it feels like thevskills tested on the LSAT would be useful in the study of the law.
The other option is that the LSAT is better at predicting law school success than the GRE. If this is the case, then Harvard and Northwestern have either just made dramatic mistakes or are deliberately sacraficing the quality of their incoming classes in a sinister play to claw their way back up the rankings.
Actually, GRE scores as of yet will not be reported to US News. So either they replace all the low LSAT people with GRE people to inflate the rankings (unlikely—NU is quite reverse-splitter friendly as a complement to being splitter-friendly; they need high GPA people to offset low GPA/high LSAT people), to your point, or they (what I think is much more likely) admit candidates on an extremely selective basis without LSAT.
My prediction is that, unless US News changes its rankings algorithms to account for GRE score, HLS and NU will admit very few GRE-only folks. But the option will be there to make exceptions for exceptional candidates, likely with very high GPA's (again because we need high GPA's).
@uhinberg359 said:
The ABA Council is currently reviewing its standards in regards to mandatory standardized tests required for law school admissions. ... In the end, we are optimistic that they will allow law schools greater flexibility in the admissions process, to the benefit of students, schools, and the profession alike.
Whoa! Does this mean that they are considering doing away with a requirement for any standardized test, and that Dean Rodriguez is optimistic that they will give law schools this flexibility?
No—standardized testing is necessary due to the wide variation between universities and majors and GPA standards.
Breaking LSAC's monopoly can potentially have some good results for consumers.
@marine4life6798246 said:
@uhinberg359 said:
@marine4life6798246 said:
I don't see this being bad for law schools or future applicants. Standardized tests are really overrated in terms of their predictive ability. The GRE takes less time to conquer, it seems to me, and is much more flexible in terms of when you can take it and which scores you choose to send. You're going to have to have a high GRE to be given a shot which is still a significant barrier. I am, however, annoyed that I've spent so much time studying for the LSAT. Wish this could have happened either 5 years ago or 5 years from now.
@uhinberg359 The reasoning law schools are using also bothers me although I'm not entirely sure why. They always cite an increase in applicants from engineering and science backgrounds even though I'm pretty sure those from other backgrounds will also find it easier to apply now. I wonder if LSAC could have avoided this by making the test more accessible. I also wonder if this will really have the desired effect of increasing more applicants to law schools. Were people not applying as much because they had to take the LSAT or because of the job prospects or changes in the industry in general?
I think we are mostly on the same page as far as how we feel about it. I think it's still important to remember that the LSAT is still the gold standard as far as law school admissions tests are concerned, so I wouldn't feel too annoyed because of this new GRE business. It bothered me at first, but like you I guess I didn't know exactly why. After some thinking I realized it's not that big of a deal. Let them increase the applicants and let the chips fall where they may...
I was always quite perplexed that the LSAC didn't do more to make the test more accessible. At least they are adding more administrations soon which will make things better.
Law school admissions have generally always been cyclical. So I think the recent decreases/increases in applicants were a result of several factors. I'm guessing job prospects definitely played a role.
Yeah I guess our chances were already pretty competitive at the top schools regardless of whether or not they accept GRE.
Exactly! To be honest, I wouldn't have much faith in applying to HLS or any top law school with a high GRE at this point in time. I truly wonder how seriously they are going to take the GRE scores. I take a lot of solace in hopefully being able to apply with a hight LSAT/GPA combo. It's nice to know where you stand I suppose.
@marine4life6798246 said:
pardon the ignorance, i know zip about the GRE, but is it easier or harder then the LSAT?
It is generally thought to be easier to master. I've heard of tons of people taking a year or more to study for the LSAT. I've never heard of the same being true for the GRE. But it really depends on which section of the GRE you're looking to master. Unlike the LSAT, the GRE has a math section. But grad schools typically look at one of the sections more seriously than the other (like Harvard mentioned in the email supplied above).
@shaw5563 said:
Besides that the schools want to have a bigger applicants pool, they might also start to see LSAT as a barrier that prevents students from applying for law school.
Last year, there were a significant drop in the law school average LSAT score, while more students took LSAT than the year before. (I know it starts to sound like an RRE question now.) People are becoming more flexible about going to law schools/going to other graduate schools/going to work. That might because the tuition is going up & up while finding a good job is not any easier. I guess, in the old days, people see LSAT and all the hard exams associated with law school as a part of the pride, but now more people might just think that it doesn't worth it. Then LSAT become a barrier. And schools start to think about skipping it.
Yeah, I guess the only caveat is that law schools are seeing it as a barrier to students who have already have access to taking it and scoring well but aren't because of the reasons you mentioned.
@uhinberg359 said:
@marine4life6798246 said:
I don't see this being bad for law schools or future applicants. Standardized tests are really overrated in terms of their predictive ability. The GRE takes less time to conquer, it seems to me, and is much more flexible in terms of when you can take it and which scores you choose to send. You're going to have to have a high GRE to be given a shot which is still a significant barrier. I am, however, annoyed that I've spent so much time studying for the LSAT. Wish this could have happened either 5 years ago or 5 years from now.
@uhinberg359 The reasoning law schools are using also bothers me although I'm not entirely sure why. They always cite an increase in applicants from engineering and science backgrounds even though I'm pretty sure those from other backgrounds will also find it easier to apply now. I wonder if LSAC could have avoided this by making the test more accessible. I also wonder if this will really have the desired effect of increasing more applicants to law schools. Were people not applying as much because they had to take the LSAT or because of the job prospects or changes in the industry in general?
I think we are mostly on the same page as far as how we feel about it. I think it's still important to remember that the LSAT is still the gold standard as far as law school admissions tests are concerned, so I wouldn't feel too annoyed because of this new GRE business. It bothered me at first, but like you I guess I didn't know exactly why. After some thinking I realized it's not that big of a deal. Let them increase the applicants and let the chips fall where they may...
I was always quite perplexed that the LSAC didn't do more to make the test more accessible. At least they are adding more administrations soon which will make things better.
Law school admissions have generally always been cyclical. So I think the recent decreases/increases in applicants were a result of several factors. I'm guessing job prospects definitely played a role.
Yeah I guess our chances were already pretty competitive at the top schools regardless of whether or not they accept GRE.
pardon the ignorance, i know zip about the GRE, but is it easier or harder then the LSAT?
Besides that the schools want to have a bigger applicants pool, they might also start to see LSAT as a barrier that prevents students from applying for law school.
Last year, there were a significant drop in the law school average LSAT score, while more students took LSAT than the year before. (I know it starts to sound like an RRE question now.) People are becoming more flexible about going to law schools/going to other graduate schools/going to work. That might because the tuition is going up & up while finding a good job is not any easier. I guess, in the old days, people see LSAT and all the hard exams associated with law school as a part of the pride, but now more people might just think that it doesn't worth it. Then LSAT become a barrier. And schools start to think about skipping it.
@marine4life6798246 said:
I don't see this being bad for law schools or future applicants. Standardized tests are really overrated in terms of their predictive ability. The GRE takes less time to conquer, it seems to me, and is much more flexible in terms of when you can take it and which scores you choose to send. You're going to have to have a high GRE to be given a shot which is still a significant barrier. I am, however, annoyed that I've spent so much time studying for the LSAT. Wish this could have happened either 5 years ago or 5 years from now.
@uhinberg359 The reasoning law schools are using also bothers me although I'm not entirely sure why. They always cite an increase in applicants from engineering and science backgrounds even though I'm pretty sure those from other backgrounds will also find it easier to apply now. I wonder if LSAC could have avoided this by making the test more accessible. I also wonder if this will really have the desired effect of increasing more applicants to law schools. Were people not applying as much because they had to take the LSAT or because of the job prospects or changes in the industry in general?
I think we are mostly on the same page as far as how we feel about it. I think it's still important to remember that the LSAT is still the gold standard as far as law school admissions tests are concerned, so I wouldn't feel too annoyed because of this new GRE business. It bothered me at first, but like you I guess I didn't know exactly why. After some thinking I realized it's not that big of a deal. Let them increase the applicants and let the chips fall where they may...
I was always quite perplexed that the LSAC didn't do more to make the test more accessible. At least they are adding more administrations soon which will make things better.
Law school admissions have generally always been cyclical. So I think the recent decreases/increases in applicants were a result of several factors. I'm guessing job prospects definitely played a role.