Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Northwestern Pritzker to accept GRE Fall 2018

Nicole HopkinsNicole Hopkins Alum Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐
in General 4344 karma

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

Comments

  • NotMyNameNotMyName Alum Member Sage
    5320 karma

    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).

    Interesting! thank you for sharing. Although, acceptance is not to 2018, but rather to 2019. One may begin applying with the GRE this Fall for admission the following year.

  • OlamHafuchOlamHafuch Alum Member
    2326 karma

    The slow death of the LSAT continues . . .

  • NotMyNameNotMyName Alum Member Sage
    5320 karma

    From the minimal research i've done, the GRE does not seem to be as difficult at the LSAT in general terms. I may delay my application because of a timing issue, and if that is the case, i may just take the GRE for shits and gigs after some prep.

    From the law school point of view, i think this shift makes sense in terms of widening their application pool. I'll be interested to see how the GREers perform in law school vs LSATers. I for one firmly believe that I am more prepared for law school because of the LSAT.

  • TheMikeyTheMikey Alum Member
    4196 karma

    @jkatz1488 said:
    From the minimal research i've done, the GRE does not seem to be as difficult at the LSAT in general terms. I may delay my application because of a timing issue, and if that is the case, i may just take the GRE for shits and gigs after some prep.

    From the law school point of view, i think this shift makes sense in terms of widening their application pool. I'll be interested to see how the GREers perform in law school vs LSATers. I for one firmly believe that I am more prepared for law school because of the LSAT.

    everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) I know that has studied for both the GRE and LSAT say that the GRE is a joke compared to the LSAT, haha. Someone I know studied for a week and got like 99th percentile on the GRE.

  • LSATcantwinLSATcantwin Alum Member Sage
    13286 karma

    @TheMikey said:

    @jkatz1488 said:
    From the minimal research i've done, the GRE does not seem to be as difficult at the LSAT in general terms. I may delay my application because of a timing issue, and if that is the case, i may just take the GRE for shits and gigs after some prep.

    From the law school point of view, i think this shift makes sense in terms of widening their application pool. I'll be interested to see how the GREers perform in law school vs LSATers. I for one firmly believe that I am more prepared for law school because of the LSAT.

    everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) I know that has studied for both the GRE and LSAT say that the GRE is a joke compared to the LSAT, haha. Someone I know studied for a week and got like 99th percentile on the GRE.

    My friend didn't even study. She signed up, took it, and is now going to school to be a PA. She scored pretty high too.

  • OlamHafuchOlamHafuch Alum Member
    2326 karma

    The best test for aptitude is a test that is taken without studying. Arguably, a great score after intense studying shows little more than work ethic. Nothing to sneeze at, but not what an aptitude test is supposed to measure.

  • sillllyxosillllyxo Alum Member
    708 karma

    the gre is a joke compared to the lsat - not surprised more schools will follow after HLS set a precedent - maybe JY will get into the gre gig.

  • OlamHafuchOlamHafuch Alum Member
    2326 karma


    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?

  • NotMyNameNotMyName Alum Member Sage
    edited August 2017 5320 karma

    The best test for aptitude is a test that is taken without studying. Arguably, a great score after intense studying shows little more than work ethic. Nothing to sneeze at, but not what an aptitude test is supposed to measure.

    Hm. I can't help but notice the irony dripping from this comment on a prep website for the LSAT. You seem to be suggesting that a 170 earned cold with no prep says much more about a student than a 170 earned after a year of studying. I'm not sure that's the case. Both students had the knowledge required to earn that score. What they did up to that point seems arbitrary to me. At least much more so than you imply.

  • OlamHafuchOlamHafuch Alum Member
    2326 karma

    But LSAT is not trying to test knowledge; it's trying to test your aptitude for law school. It's not trying to make sure that you know certain things before they let you in. And yes, a cold 170 is much more meaningful. That's partly why Yale is so interested in knowing how a person prepared for the LSAT, b/c a high score without high quality prep is a more meaningful indicator of the aptitude that LSAT is trying to test for.

  • stephen63stephen63 Member
    edited August 2017 34 karma

    .

  • Cant Get RightCant Get Right Yearly + Live Member Sage 🍌 7Sage Tutor
    27829 karma

    I wouldn't call the LSAT an aptitude test. If the LSAT self-proclaims that it's meant to be a test of natural ability, then so be it, but I'd argue that they are woefully misguided. The LSAT tests way more than this and just about every other skill it tests is more important.

  • rafaelitorafaelito Alum Member
    1063 karma

    My question is how are these changes going to effect scholarships?

  • akistotleakistotle Member 🍌🍌
    9377 karma

    I hope this will make LSAC consider letting us send only the best score to law schools....

  • AlexAlex Alum Member
    edited August 2017 23929 karma

    I've got some history with the GRE and it's definitely not a joke lol. I would wager that people would probably score about as well as they do on the LSAT on the GRE. I think it more or less tests many of same skills. Of course, straight math vs. logic games being the biggest difference. I do think the LSAT requires a lot less common sense and probably a bit more prep though. I also think because the GRE has more math that most people aren't likely to use in everyday life, it would be increasingly difficult for those who have been out of school for a while. I can definitely see how it might be seen as easier though -- just not exactly a "joke."

    That said, I'm a little disappointed to see schools that just want to attract more applicants and as
    a result accept tests other than the LSAT. Part of their argument seems to be it's a good predictor of 1L scores, but if that's the case, just administer a Stanford–Binet IQ test and be done with it. I'm sure at the end of the day IQ is a great predictor of not only 1L grades, but bar passages rates and career success.

    If you want to go to law school, you should have to take the LSAT. Shouldn't there be some objective standard to evaluate every student.

  • OlamHafuchOlamHafuch Alum Member
    2326 karma

    @"Alex Divine" Who is to say that the objective standard for every student should be the LSAT. Maybe it should be the GRE. Northwestern claims that it conducted some sort of study that yielded a correlation between GRE and 1st year law grades (they must have found enough 1st year law school students who had taken the GRE; don't know where). Maybe that correlation is better than the LSAT correlation; who knows?
    The LSAT's only claim of validity is the correlation between scores and 1L law grades. If IQ correlates better, then it would potentially be more useful, but of course, no one would ever do something so politically incorrect as that.

  • stepharizonastepharizona Alum Member
    3197 karma

    Just as an FYI guys if people have already taken the LSAT and then take the GRE the LSAT must still be reported to the ABA and USNews for rankings. So the LSAT still will play a
    Huge role and if you only
    Take the GRE your choices for Fall 2018 are Georgetown, Harvard and UofA

    Will HLS report my LSAT score to the American Bar Association (ABA) if I take both the LSAT and the GRE?
    Yes. If you take the LSAT, then we will report the LSAT score to the ABA.

    UofA: f I’ve already taken the LSAT, can I submit a GRE score instead?
    No. If you have already taken the LSAT, you must apply via LSAC and submit your LSAT scores. If you have also taken the GRE and would like to submit that score, we would welcome that information, which you can provide via your LSAC application, and will consider it with all other application materials.

  • AlexAlex Alum Member
    23929 karma

    @uhinberg said:
    @"Alex Divine" Who is to say that the objective standard for every student should be the LSAT. Maybe it should be the GRE. Northwestern claims that it conducted some sort of study that yielded a correlation between GRE and 1st year law grades (they must have found enough 1st year law school students who had taken the GRE; don't know where). Maybe that correlation is better than the LSAT correlation; who knows?
    The LSAT's only claim of validity is the correlation between scores and 1L law grades. If IQ correlates better, then it would potentially be more useful, but of course, no one would ever do something so politically incorrect as that.

    Well, they should show us the studies, haha, then we will know :)

    I just worry it is a slippery slope to accepting all types of test scores in an attempt to boost applicants. I think it's the motive behind it that bothers me, to be honest.

  • dfletch5dfletch5 Alum Member
    260 karma

    @"nicole.hopkins" Hey Nicole, what's your best advice for 7Sagers now in light of Northwestern and Georgetown's announcements?

  • tringo335tringo335 Alum Member
    3679 karma

    I feel like I should be worried for some reason .... although I don't know why... first HLS, then Northwestern now Georgetown? Is there anyway this could affect future applicants? It seems that they are only trying to increase applicants since applicants to law school have been dwindling but I'm wondering how this will affect people who take the LSAT? Maybe I'm worrying for no reason?

  • dfletch5dfletch5 Alum Member
    260 karma

    @"Nicole Hopkins" 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 Hopkins" @tringo335 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!!!

  • AlexAlex Alum Member
    edited August 2017 23929 karma

    @tringo335 said:
    I feel like I should be worried for some reason .... although I don't know why... first HLS, then Northwestern now Georgetown? Is there anyway this could affect future applicants? It seems that they are only trying to increase applicants since applicants to law school have been dwindling but I'm wondering how this will affect people who take the LSAT? Maybe I'm worrying for no reason?

    I don't think it's going to have much of an effect on future applicants. LSAT scores are what's reported and used to factor into the rankings, at least for now. Like you said, this is mainly to increase the # of applicants. By next year I bet most of the T13 (and more) will be accepting GRE scores as it will become a function of simple game theory that schools will need to conform to accepting GREs or risk having less applicants. Perhaps Yale will stand strong and only accept the LSAT for the foreseeable future.

    I'm not worried because we are going to kill this test :smile:

  • dfletch5dfletch5 Alum Member
    edited August 2017 260 karma

    @"Alex Divine" said:
    I'm not worried because we are going to kill this test

    So true!

  • 1000001910000019 Alum Member
    3279 karma

    Assuming that the schools seriously consider the GRE, and aren't just doing this for statistics/increased application revenue, I think this is a big negative.
    - More competition for the same number of spots
    - Potentially having wasted time studying for the LSAT

    I'm curious whether this will encourage specific groups of LSAT scorers to the GRE. In the event that low scorers decide to hop on the GRE train, then the curve could decrease.

  • AlexAlex Alum Member
    edited August 2017 23929 karma

    @10000019 said:
    Assuming that the schools seriously consider the GRE, and aren't just doing this for statistics/increased application revenue, I think this is a big negative.
    - More competition for the same number of spots
    - Potentially having wasted time studying for the LSAT

    I'm curious whether this will encourage specific groups of LSAT scorers to the GRE. In the event that low scorers decide to hop on the GRE train, then the curve could decrease.

    I totally agree this is most likely all about increased applications & revenue. And once the top schools start taking GRE scores, it's going to spread like a virus to all the lower ranked schools. The LSAT being a specific barrier to Law school admissions is important. It helps to make sure people applying are at least dedicated to the idea of law school. So I agree this is a negative.

    I don't think it will have that much of an effect on us. If you have a GPA/LSAT score that would have otherwise got you into a certain school that now takes GRE scores, I don't think you have to worry about your spot going to someone else.

    Also curious about how it will affect chiefly future groups of LSAT takers. More importantly, I do wonder how seriously they will consider GRE scores compared to LSAT scores. Will they essentially look at them the same? Or will LSAT takers be seen as better candidates?

  • OlamHafuchOlamHafuch Alum Member
    2326 karma
  • OlamHafuchOlamHafuch Alum Member
    2326 karma

    If you don't have patience to read the entire document, here's a great highlight:

    The Standardized Test Mandate Does Not Fit Its Claimed Purpose
    We disagree that the requirement for a law school admission test “is important in
    enforcing the requirement” that law schools should only admit students they
    believe are capable of succeeding in law school and passing the bar.
    There are many and better ways other than a standardized test to determine
    whether a law school believes an applicant can succeed in law school and pass
    the bar. That is why most law schools consider a range of factors, including
    academic ability (undergraduate grades, rigor of the undergraduate program,
    graduate studies), work experience, volunteer or public service, life experience,
    leadership, challenges overcome, career goals, writing skills, personal
    motivation, and letters of recommendation.
    Moreover, even with the admissions test requirement, there are many schools
    with a high attrition rate and/or a low bar passage rate. That is the data that
    should be most helpful to students considering where to attend law school: do
    the admitted students succeed in graduating, and do the graduates pass the bar
    exam?
    The easiest way to enforce Standard 501’s requirement that we only admit
    capable students is to measure how those students we admit perform in the
    program and on the bar exam.
    While an admission test may be helpful in evaluating many students, we do not
    know how many schools would require it for all applicants if the Standards did
    not mandate a test. It will always come down to whether the students admitted
    without an admission test score succeed in the program and pass the bar or not.
    Just because individual schools might continue to require an admissions test,
    why should it be required for accreditation? And why should the test have to be
    approved by the Council?
    Also, we do not believe that the median or range of test scores of admitted
    students is helpful for students deciding where to attend school.
    Harming Diversity, Skewing Admissions
    The requirement of a standardized admissions test negatively impacts efforts to
    diversify the profession. The many law schools attentive to rankings by U.S.
    News routinely waitlist or deny admission to students who the school believes
    can succeed in the educational program and pass the bar exam. In fact, many of
    these students’ admission test scores are – in predictive terms – indistinguishable
    from applicants who are admitted. And many of these students are diverse
    along any measurement of diversity. But the heavy weight put on these test
    scores by U.S. News inhibits the ability to admit these students for fear of
    harming the law school’s rankings.
    The denial of admission has less to do with the abilities of the prospective
    students and more to do with maintaining metrics to ensure rankings success.
    While Interpretation 503-2 states that Standard 503 “does not prescribe the
    particular weight that a law school should give to an applicant’s admission test
    score in deciding whether to admit or deny admission to the applicant,” such a
    statement flies in the face of reality for many schools.

    This is quite an admission from law school deans.

  • Ann MarieAnn Marie Alum Member
    72 karma

    I have emailed Harvard law, they said they only take the Verbal part into consideration. So, that's pretty much no difference with taking the LSAT?

    Below is the email

    "Quantitative factors, while informative, do not play a decisive role in our selection process. We have no computational methods for making admission decisions, no mechanical short cuts, no substitutes for careful assessment and good judgment. All completed applications are reviewed in their entirety with the LSAT and/or GRE as one factor in an overall assessment of academic promise, personal achievement, and potential contribution to the vitality of the student body.

    Thank you for your interest in Harvard Law School.

    Sincerely,
    J.D. Admissions "

  • sjiang666sjiang666 Alum Member
    157 karma

    I have emailed Harvard law, they said they only take the Verbal part into consideration. So, that's pretty much no difference with taking the LSAT?

    I was thinking that accepting GRE will encourage so many ESL students to apply law school. Now I see the trick.

  • AlexAlex Alum Member
    23929 karma

    @"Ann Marie" said:
    I have emailed Harvard law, they said they only take the Verbal part into consideration. So, that's pretty much no difference with taking the LSAT?

    Below is the email

    "Quantitative factors, while informative, do not play a decisive role in our selection process. We have no computational methods for making admission decisions, no mechanical short cuts, no substitutes for careful assessment and good judgment. All completed applications are reviewed in their entirety with the LSAT and/or GRE as one factor in an overall assessment of academic promise, personal achievement, and potential contribution to the vitality of the student body.

    Thank you for your interest in Harvard Law School.

    Sincerely,
    J.D. Admissions "

    Very informative and good to know. Thank you so much Ann!

  • Seeking PerfectionSeeking Perfection Alum Member
    4423 karma

    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.

  • AlexAlex Alum Member
    23929 karma

    I think this will allow NU, GT, and H to become more competitive in the rankings. H can finally claw its way back ahead of Stanford if more people apply and then they still accept the same size incoming class. Same for GT and NU with respect to rankings. Luckily I don't really see it having a major effect on anyone except those that may be considered splitters. I think a lot of us are probably making a mountain out of a molehill here, but I guess we'll have to wait and see. It seems like this will allow the top schools to accept those with super high GPAs and GRE scores that they don't necessarily have to report for purposes of rankings. I think a good way to solve this would be to mandate the law schools to report GRE scores and to somehow factor that into their rankings so they can't game the rankings as easily.

    It seems to me that unfortunately the real victims here will be some of those who apply with GRE scores to the lower ranked schools that will eventually begin accepting them too if this trend continues. Having to specifically study for the LSAT served as a good barrier to make sure those who really wanted to go to law school were willing to dedicate themselves to overcoming the LSAT.

    I'm very interested to see what types of GRE/GPA combos gain admittance to the different schools that are accepting it now.

  • dennisgerrarddennisgerrard Member
    1644 karma

    Winter(for law schools&LSAT) is coming;) Law school's competition benefits the applicants. I hope UW is the next one to take GRE for law school admission.

  • dfletch5dfletch5 Alum Member
    260 karma

    @"Ann Marie" said:
    I have emailed Harvard law, they said they only take the Verbal part into consideration. So, that's pretty much no difference with taking the LSAT?

    Below is the email

    "Quantitative factors, while informative, do not play a decisive role in our selection process. We have no computational methods for making admission decisions, no mechanical short cuts, no substitutes for careful assessment and good judgment. All completed applications are reviewed in their entirety with the LSAT and/or GRE as one factor in an overall assessment of academic promise, personal achievement, and potential contribution to the vitality of the student body.

    Thank you for your interest in Harvard Law School.

    Sincerely,
    J.D. Admissions "

    @"Anna Marie" Thank you for reaching out to HLS.

    It seems applicants would need pretty much a perfect score on GRE Verbal to qualify for HLS, and it's quite possible ETS will respond by making the GRE a more rigorous test which will benefit every grad program accepting GRE, including b-schools, because then they can be even more selective.

  • rafaelitorafaelito Alum Member
    edited August 2017 1063 karma

    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.

    @"Alex Divine" 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?

  • AlexAlex Alum Member
    23929 karma

    @RafaelBernard 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.

    @"Alex Divine" 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.

  • sjiang666sjiang666 Alum Member
    157 karma

    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.

  • theLSATdreamertheLSATdreamer Alum Member
    1287 karma

    pardon the ignorance, i know zip about the GRE, but is it easier or harder then the LSAT?

  • rafaelitorafaelito Alum Member
    1063 karma

    @"Alex Divine" said:

    @RafaelBernard 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.

    @"Alex Divine" 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.

  • rafaelitorafaelito Alum Member
    1063 karma

    @sjiang666 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.

  • rafaelitorafaelito Alum Member
    1063 karma

    @theLSATdreamer 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).

  • AlexAlex Alum Member
    23929 karma

    @RafaelBernard said:

    @"Alex Divine" said:

    @RafaelBernard 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.

    @"Alex Divine" 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.

  • OlamHafuchOlamHafuch Alum Member
    2326 karma

    Breaking LSAC's monopoly can potentially have some good results for consumers.

  • Nicole HopkinsNicole Hopkins Alum Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐
    4344 karma

    @uhinberg 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 HopkinsNicole Hopkins Alum Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐
    4344 karma

    @"Seeking Perfection" 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).

  • OlamHafuchOlamHafuch Alum Member
    2326 karma

    @"nicole.hopkins" > @"Nicole Hopkins" said:

    @uhinberg 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.hopkins" See this document, signed by Dean Rodriguez. It does seem like he is advocating for the ABA not requiring any standardized test.

  • theLSATdreamertheLSATdreamer Alum Member
    1287 karma

    @RafaelBernard where was that picture taken?

  • tringo335tringo335 Alum Member
    3679 karma

    @dfletch5 said:

    @"Nicole Hopkins" 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 Hopkins" @tringo335 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. :)

  • camcam Alum Member
    349 karma

    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).

Sign In or Register to comment.