NEW Schools That Now Accept GRE Scores?

OverRatedUnderAchiever

If anyone knows of new schools that are now accepting GRE scores as well as LSAT scores, please comment and tell us which ones! Lets make one big list that is organized, and in one discussion! Thanks!

Eric25

Per ets.org as of Feb. 2018

Brigham Young University Law School
Brooklyn Law School
Columbia Law School (beginning in September 2018)
Georgetown University Law Center
Harvard Law School
Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
Pace University Elisabeth Haub School of Law
St. John's University School of Law
Texas A&M University School of Law
University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law
University of Hawai’i at Manoa William S. Richardson School of Law
Wake Forest University School of Law (beginning in fall 2018)
Washington University School of Law (beginning in fall 2018)
Yeshiva University Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

OverRatedUnderAchiever

This is crazy, does anyone care to use their opinions on why this is occurring? Theories, explainations, stats, etc??

OverRatedUnderAchiever

@estouten25 said:
Per ets.org as of Feb. 2018

Brigham Young University Law School
Brooklyn Law School
Columbia Law School (beginning in September 2018)
Georgetown University Law Center
Harvard Law School
Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
Pace University Elisabeth Haub School of Law
St. John's University School of Law
Texas A&M University School of Law
University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law
University of Hawai’i at Manoa William S. Richardson School of Law
Wake Forest University School of Law (beginning in fall 2018)
Washington University School of Law (beginning in fall 2018)
Yeshiva University Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

Thanks for all the info!

Alex

@OverRatedUnderAchiever said:
This is crazy, does anyone care to use their opinions on why this is occurring? Theories, explainations, stats, etc??

Law school is (largely) a scam and this is an easy way to scam more students into 6 figure debt. At least this seems like the impetus for lower ranked schools to accept GRE. For both lower and higher ranked schools, it allows them to boost the amount of applicants.

storm

@Alex said:

@OverRatedUnderAchiever said:
This is crazy, does anyone care to use their opinions on why this is occurring? Theories, explainations, stats, etc??

Law school is (largely) a scam and this is an easy way to scam more students into 6 figure debt. At least this seems like the impetus for lower ranked schools to accept GRE. For both lower and higher ranked schools, it allows them to boost the amount of applicants.

I'd also add that it makes it much easier for those on the fence about applying for a dual degree (MPP/JD), etc. to do so given the flexibility of the GRE score (for example, HKS or Woodrow Wilson won't let you use an LSAT score for their Public Policy programs). That means making it easier to increase applicant/enroll numbers for other programs and more $$$ dropped on application fees.

Alex

@stormNYC said:

@Alex said:

@OverRatedUnderAchiever said:
This is crazy, does anyone care to use their opinions on why this is occurring? Theories, explainations, stats, etc??

Law school is (largely) a scam and this is an easy way to scam more students into 6 figure debt. At least this seems like the impetus for lower ranked schools to accept GRE. For both lower and higher ranked schools, it allows them to boost the amount of applicants.

I'd also add that it makes it much easier for those on the fence about applying for a dual degree (MPP/JD), etc. to do so given the flexibility of the GRE score (for example, HKS or Woodrow Wilson won't let you use an LSAT score for their Public Policy programs). That means making it easier to increase applicant/enroll numbers for other programs and more $$$ dropped on application fees.

For sure^

All comes down to the money/increased applicant pool. To me, the LSAC should regulate law schools like the AMA does medical schools. It's such a shame how transparent the law school scam has become.

nessa.k13.0

One thing I’d be careful about before jumping to the GRE/dual degree ship is that some of those schools have pilot programs, where they are admitting a certain number of applicants with a GRE score instead of the LSAT. They are also mostly attempts to target non traditional J.D. candidates as applicants such as those with STEM backgrounds. Read the goals these law schools list on the GRE announcement page. If you’re a humanities/traditional type applicant, it looks like a bad idea to try to take the GRE to get into law school.

OverRatedUnderAchiever

@Alex said:

@OverRatedUnderAchiever said:
This is crazy, does anyone care to use their opinions on why this is occurring? Theories, explainations, stats, etc??

Law school is (largely) a scam and this is an easy way to scam more students into 6 figure debt. At least this seems like the impetus for lower ranked schools to accept GRE. For both lower and higher ranked schools, it allows them to boost the amount of applicants.

You deserve an award for this.

FixedDice

@Alex said:
To me, the LSAC should regulate law schools like the AMA does medical schools.

...or the ABA should grow a spine. I was outraged when I learned the ABA decided not to take a stance regarding the GRE controversy.

Alex

@FixedDice said:

@Alex said:
To me, the LSAC should regulate law schools like the AMA does medical schools.

...or the ABA should grow a spine. I was outraged when I learned the ABA decided not to take a stance regarding the GRE controversy.

Yeah, I actually meant ABA not LSAC. My bad on that lol.

But yeah, that seems to be the obvious answer here.

For example, half of the people who go to law school never practice law. Just imagine for a second that was the case for doctors practicing medicine? In Pakistan, it's actually been considered a humanitarian crisis that only 50% of female doctors end up practicing medicine. In America, it's just a foregone conclusion. Many law schools have ≤ 50% bar passage rates. The ABA needs to start shutting down/taking away accreditation for any school with these abysmal statistics.

Eric25

@Alex said:

@FixedDice said:

@Alex said:
To me, the LSAC should regulate law schools like the AMA does medical schools.

...or the ABA should grow a spine. I was outraged when I learned the ABA decided not to take a stance regarding the GRE controversy.

Yeah, I actually meant ABA not LSAC. My bad on that lol.

But yeah, that seems to be the obvious answer here.

For example, half of the people who go to law school never practice law. Just imagine for a second that was the case for doctors practicing medicine? In Pakistan, it's actually been considered a humanitarian crisis that only 50% of female doctors end up practicing medicine. In America, it's just a foregone conclusion. Many law schools have ≤ 50% bar passage rates. The ABA needs to start shutting down/taking away accreditation for any school with these abysmal statistics.

Sounds like thomas jefferson might be the first once, and they deserve it

OverRatedUnderAchiever

@"nessa.k13.0" said:
One thing I’d be careful about before jumping to the GRE/dual degree ship is that some of those schools have pilot programs, where they are admitting a certain number of applicants with a GRE score instead of the LSAT. They are also mostly attempts to target non traditional J.D. candidates as applicants such as those with STEM backgrounds. Read the goals these law schools list on the GRE announcement page. If you’re a humanities/traditional type applicant, it looks like a bad idea to try to take the GRE to get into law school.

The main reason I take an interest in this discussion, and am so curious to see what people's opinions are, is due to the fact that I fall into a very odd area... regarding this topic. If someone is planning on attending law school after getting their M.A in Rhetoric, wouldn't it make sense to utilize the higher score, regardless of which test? I am genuinely interesting in hearing all opinions from all over the spectrum.
More advice please?

Alex

@estouten25 said:

@Alex said:

@FixedDice said:

@Alex said:
To me, the LSAC should regulate law schools like the AMA does medical schools.

...or the ABA should grow a spine. I was outraged when I learned the ABA decided not to take a stance regarding the GRE controversy.

Yeah, I actually meant ABA not LSAC. My bad on that lol.

But yeah, that seems to be the obvious answer here.

For example, half of the people who go to law school never practice law. Just imagine for a second that was the case for doctors practicing medicine? In Pakistan, it's actually been considered a humanitarian crisis that only 50% of female doctors end up practicing medicine. In America, it's just a foregone conclusion. Many law schools have ≤ 50% bar passage rates. The ABA needs to start shutting down/taking away accreditation for any school with these abysmal statistics.

Sounds like thomas jefferson might be the first once, and they deserve it

Amen! From your lips to god's ears...

OverRatedUnderAchiever

@estouten25 said:

@Alex said:

@FixedDice said:

@Alex said:
To me, the LSAC should regulate law schools like the AMA does medical schools.

...or the ABA should grow a spine. I was outraged when I learned the ABA decided not to take a stance regarding the GRE controversy.

Yeah, I actually meant ABA not LSAC. My bad on that lol.

But yeah, that seems to be the obvious answer here.

For example, half of the people who go to law school never practice law. Just imagine for a second that was the case for doctors practicing medicine? In Pakistan, it's actually been considered a humanitarian crisis that only 50% of female doctors end up practicing medicine. In America, it's just a foregone conclusion. Many law schools have ≤ 50% bar passage rates. The ABA needs to start shutting down/taking away accreditation for any school with these abysmal statistics.

Sounds like thomas jefferson might be the first once, and they deserve it

I can understand your point, however I would be interested in hearing your position on this: JY went and did everything an attorney does after passing the bar, and going to Ivy League schools, yet he found his career in helping us achieve success on the LSAT. Therefore, I do think there are many people who go to law school but chose not to continue practicing... does that make it the ABA liable for the decisions one makes after passing the bars, and not foregoing law practice?? I could easily be mixing up or missing the points, please let me know if I am. Just trying to figure it all out.

Alex

@OverRatedUnderAchiever said:

@estouten25 said:

@Alex said:

@FixedDice said:

@Alex said:
To me, the LSAC should regulate law schools like the AMA does medical schools.

...or the ABA should grow a spine. I was outraged when I learned the ABA decided not to take a stance regarding the GRE controversy.

Yeah, I actually meant ABA not LSAC. My bad on that lol.

But yeah, that seems to be the obvious answer here.

For example, half of the people who go to law school never practice law. Just imagine for a second that was the case for doctors practicing medicine? In Pakistan, it's actually been considered a humanitarian crisis that only 50% of female doctors end up practicing medicine. In America, it's just a foregone conclusion. Many law schools have ≤ 50% bar passage rates. The ABA needs to start shutting down/taking away accreditation for any school with these abysmal statistics.

Sounds like thomas jefferson might be the first once, and they deserve it

I can understand your point, however I would be interested in hearing your position on this: JY went and did everything an attorney does after passing the bar, and going to Ivy League schools, yet he found his career in helping us achieve success on the LSAT. Therefore, I do think there are many people who go to law school but chose not to continue practicing... does that make it the ABA liable for the decisions one makes after passing the bars, and not foregoing law practice?? I could easily be mixing up or missing the points, please let me know if I am. Just trying to figure it all out.

The thing is, there's a big difference between J.Y. going to Harvard Law School and choosing not to practice law and some poor chump who gets suckered into attending Thomas Jefferson School of Law (21% employment score/ <50% bar passage, 50k/yr in tuition) who ends up not being able to pass the bar or find a job. IIRC, J.Y. had the option to work at 2 different big law firms. The people who go to many of these schools don't have any choice to begin with.

Of course I don't think the ABA should be liable, nor the law schools, for people who pass the bar and/or ultimately choose to do something else all together. But again, I do think there are issues when schools are accepting applicants with LSATS in the 140s who will have a very tough time passing the bar or finding jobs at all. After all, I'm assuming people aren't choosing to be unemployed and looking for legal work.

We also always have to remember that the vast majority of people who go to law school do so to practice law. Any school that has less than ~80% of it's graduates working in law probably has some issues.

Eric25

@OverRatedUnderAchiever In my opinion, the ABA is not liable for the decisions one makes after passing the bar, but is liable for ensuring the proper education of the law and for a school that actually gives you a chance to pass the bar and find work that requires your legal education. I'm sure JY had every opportunity to practice law, he just found more enjoyment in helping us all kill the LSAT and get into our top choice schools (thank you so much JY, sincerely). A place like thomas jefferson has put students in 6 digit debt, with such a low prospect of JD required positions that its just irresponsible of the school itself and of the ABA if they choose to look at that school and allow such a process to continue. Like Alex said above, Its a complete scam for a school like Thomas Jefferson

OverRatedUnderAchiever

@Alex said:

@OverRatedUnderAchiever said:

@estouten25 said:

@Alex said:

@FixedDice said:

@Alex said:
To me, the LSAC should regulate law schools like the AMA does medical schools.

...or the ABA should grow a spine. I was outraged when I learned the ABA decided not to take a stance regarding the GRE controversy.

Yeah, I actually meant ABA not LSAC. My bad on that lol.

But yeah, that seems to be the obvious answer here.

For example, half of the people who go to law school never practice law. Just imagine for a second that was the case for doctors practicing medicine? In Pakistan, it's actually been considered a humanitarian crisis that only 50% of female doctors end up practicing medicine. In America, it's just a foregone conclusion. Many law schools have ≤ 50% bar passage rates. The ABA needs to start shutting down/taking away accreditation for any school with these abysmal statistics.

Sounds like thomas jefferson might be the first once, and they deserve it

I can understand your point, however I would be interested in hearing your position on this: JY went and did everything an attorney does after passing the bar, and going to Ivy League schools, yet he found his career in helping us achieve success on the LSAT. Therefore, I do think there are many people who go to law school but chose not to continue practicing... does that make it the ABA liable for the decisions one makes after passing the bars, and not foregoing law practice?? I could easily be mixing up or missing the points, please let me know if I am. Just trying to figure it all out.

The thing is, there's a big difference between J.Y. going to Harvard Law School and choosing not to practice law and some poor chump who gets suckered into attending Thomas Jefferson School of Law (21% employment score/ <50% bar passage, 50k/yr in tuition) who ends up not being able to pass the bar or find a job. IIRC, J.Y. had the option to work at 2 different big law firms. The people who go to many of these schools don't have any choice to begin with.

Of course I don't think the ABA should be liable, nor the law schools, for people who pass the bar and/or ultimately choose to do something else all together. But again, I do think there are issues when schools are accepting applicants with LSATS in the 140s who will have a very tough time passing the bar or finding jobs at all. After all, I'm assuming people aren't choosing to be unemployed and looking for legal work.

We also always have to remember that the vast majority of people who go to law school do so to practice law. Any school that has less than ~80% of it's graduates working in law probably has some issues.

Understood. I think where one takes the bar as well as an impact too, significantly. For example in Florida there are too many lawyers in which most of them have few options other than to become 'ambulance chasers'. Most of those who took the FL bar, also attended the MANY law schools here as well... However, schools such as Nova Law admit anyone with a pulse & a score. Period. Shockingly, almost everyone I know who went there passed the bar the 1st time. It's pretty insane to think about the standards, but at the same time the University recently added the Law School, so it makes sense as to why their app pool gets admitted students. Perhaps schools such as Thomas Jefferson who are consistently providing evidence that they lack employment, bar passing, etc, then the ABA should step into the picture. Aside from this type of predicament, shouldn't we give upcoming and evolving law schools the chance to proving their thriving??

OverRatedUnderAchiever

@OverRatedUnderAchiever said:

@Alex said:

@OverRatedUnderAchiever said:

@estouten25 said:

@Alex said:

@FixedDice said:

@Alex said:
To me, the LSAC should regulate law schools like the AMA does medical schools.

...or the ABA should grow a spine. I was outraged when I learned the ABA decided not to take a stance regarding the GRE controversy.

Yeah, I actually meant ABA not LSAC. My bad on that lol.

But yeah, that seems to be the obvious answer here.

For example, half of the people who go to law school never practice law. Just imagine for a second that was the case for doctors practicing medicine? In Pakistan, it's actually been considered a humanitarian crisis that only 50% of female doctors end up practicing medicine. In America, it's just a foregone conclusion. Many law schools have ≤ 50% bar passage rates. The ABA needs to start shutting down/taking away accreditation for any school with these abysmal statistics.

Sounds like thomas jefferson might be the first once, and they deserve it

I can understand your point, however I would be interested in hearing your position on this: JY went and did everything an attorney does after passing the bar, and going to Ivy League schools, yet he found his career in helping us achieve success on the LSAT. Therefore, I do think there are many people who go to law school but chose not to continue practicing... does that make it the ABA liable for the decisions one makes after passing the bars, and not foregoing law practice?? I could easily be mixing up or missing the points, please let me know if I am. Just trying to figure it all out.

The thing is, there's a big difference between J.Y. going to Harvard Law School and choosing not to practice law and some poor chump who gets suckered into attending Thomas Jefferson School of Law (21% employment score/ <50% bar passage, 50k/yr in tuition) who ends up not being able to pass the bar or find a job. IIRC, J.Y. had the option to work at 2 different big law firms. The people who go to many of these schools don't have any choice to begin with.

Of course I don't think the ABA should be liable, nor the law schools, for people who pass the bar and/or ultimately choose to do something else all together. But again, I do think there are issues when schools are accepting applicants with LSATS in the 140s who will have a very tough time passing the bar or finding jobs at all. After all, I'm assuming people aren't choosing to be unemployed and looking for legal work.

We also always have to remember that the vast majority of people who go to law school do so to practice law. Any school that has less than ~80% of it's graduates working in law probably has some issues.

Understood. I think where one takes the bar as well as an impact too, significantly. For example in Florida there are too many lawyers in which most of them have few options other than to become 'ambulance chasers'. Most of those who took the FL bar, also attended the MANY law schools here as well... However, schools such as Nova Law admit anyone with a pulse & a score. Period. Shockingly, almost everyone I know who went there passed the bar the 1st time. It's pretty insane to think about the standards, but at the same time the University recently added the Law School, so it makes sense as to why their app pool gets admitted students. Perhaps schools such as Thomas Jefferson who are consistently providing evidence that they lack employment, bar passing, etc, then the ABA should step into the picture. Aside from this type of predicament, shouldn't we give upcoming and evolving law schools the chance to prove that they are thriving??

FixedDice

@OverRatedUnderAchiever said:
If someone is planning on attending law school after getting their M.A in Rhetoric, wouldn't it make sense to utilize the higher score, regardless of which test?

I don't know... There's that one LR question demonstrating that studying logic doesn't necessarily grant you mastery over the subject (PT31, S3, Q5).

Seriously though, as far as my understanding goes, rhetoric is not exactly equivalent to logic. Besides, all academic disciplines involve some use of logic. I don't see why studying a specific subject should justify use of one test over the other.

OverRatedUnderAchiever

@FixedDice said:

@OverRatedUnderAchiever said:
If someone is planning on attending law school after getting their M.A in Rhetoric, wouldn't it make sense to utilize the higher score, regardless of which test?

I don't know... There's that one LR question demonstrating that studying logic doesn't necessarily grant you mastery over the subject (PT31, S3, Q5).

Seriously though, as far as my understanding goes, rhetoric is not exactly equivalent to logic. Besides, all academic disciplines involve some use of logic. I don't see why studying a specific subject should justify use of one test over the other.

Depends on where you are going for this M.A. in Rhetoric. I'd say it is the closest thing that can benefit for the future in law school. If someone does well enough on the GRE to go for rhetoric at UC Berkley, doesn't is seem logical to apply with that?

Alex

@OverRatedUnderAchiever said:

@Alex said:

@OverRatedUnderAchiever said:

@estouten25 said:

@Alex said:

@FixedDice said:

@Alex said:
To me, the LSAC should regulate law schools like the AMA does medical schools.

...or the ABA should grow a spine. I was outraged when I learned the ABA decided not to take a stance regarding the GRE controversy.

Yeah, I actually meant ABA not LSAC. My bad on that lol.

But yeah, that seems to be the obvious answer here.

For example, half of the people who go to law school never practice law. Just imagine for a second that was the case for doctors practicing medicine? In Pakistan, it's actually been considered a humanitarian crisis that only 50% of female doctors end up practicing medicine. In America, it's just a foregone conclusion. Many law schools have ≤ 50% bar passage rates. The ABA needs to start shutting down/taking away accreditation for any school with these abysmal statistics.

Sounds like thomas jefferson might be the first once, and they deserve it

I can understand your point, however I would be interested in hearing your position on this: JY went and did everything an attorney does after passing the bar, and going to Ivy League schools, yet he found his career in helping us achieve success on the LSAT. Therefore, I do think there are many people who go to law school but chose not to continue practicing... does that make it the ABA liable for the decisions one makes after passing the bars, and not foregoing law practice?? I could easily be mixing up or missing the points, please let me know if I am. Just trying to figure it all out.

The thing is, there's a big difference between J.Y. going to Harvard Law School and choosing not to practice law and some poor chump who gets suckered into attending Thomas Jefferson School of Law (21% employment score/ <50% bar passage, 50k/yr in tuition) who ends up not being able to pass the bar or find a job. IIRC, J.Y. had the option to work at 2 different big law firms. The people who go to many of these schools don't have any choice to begin with.

Of course I don't think the ABA should be liable, nor the law schools, for people who pass the bar and/or ultimately choose to do something else all together. But again, I do think there are issues when schools are accepting applicants with LSATS in the 140s who will have a very tough time passing the bar or finding jobs at all. After all, I'm assuming people aren't choosing to be unemployed and looking for legal work.

We also always have to remember that the vast majority of people who go to law school do so to practice law. Any school that has less than ~80% of it's graduates working in law probably has some issues.

Understood. I think where one takes the bar as well as an impact too, significantly. For example in Florida there are too many lawyers in which most of them have few options other than to become 'ambulance chasers'. Most of those who took the FL bar, also attended the MANY law schools here as well... However, schools such as Nova Law admit anyone with a pulse & a score. Period. Shockingly, almost everyone I know who went there passed the bar the 1st time. It's pretty insane to think about the standards, but at the same time the University recently added the Law School, so it makes sense as to why their app pool gets admitted students. Perhaps schools such as Thomas Jefferson who are consistently providing evidence that they lack employment, bar passing, etc, then the ABA should step into the picture. Aside from this type of predicament, shouldn't we give upcoming and evolving law schools the chance to proving their thriving??

Yeah, I think I agree with that!

Although I ultimately think there are just too many law schools and lawyers already. period. If it were up to me, I'd just make sure that the requirements for accreditation were much higher. I don't think it would be unreasonable to implement a 75% employment/bar passage rating in order to be accredited. Even though it would probably mean all but the top 35-40 schools would have to close down. I think something along those lines would ensure schools don't just let in admits to get their money, but rather students who they believe they can turn into successful attorneys.

Idk, I'm sort of a cynical asshole about this entire thing. I personally know too many people who got screwed by going to law school to be objective about it. Plus, I think the numbers sort of speak for themselves. But apparently there's a percentage of people who go to these schools who do find employment and have successful careers. Who am I to tell them they shouldn't have the access to these lower ranked schools, you know?

lTexlawz

This is my personal opinion. By lowering the bar, using the GRE in law school applications, the quality of legal education will go down. My feeling that quality doesn't matter anymore. I remember seeing Alan Derhoshivitz a little while go and he said he use to could tell if he saw the next supreme court justice or a leader of a fortune 500 company or next leader of the free world. Now, he says that the students he runs across are not quality. When you prep for the LSAT and a great score, you set yourself a higher level and you are saying I did it. I like the LSAT. It is a weapon that trains your brain to weed out stupid arguments. The skills on the LSAT that you learn are the same skills needed for legal reasoning. GRE doesn't teach those skills. Those are skills you will need to pass the bar exam. The LSAT is set of reasoning skills that you carry with you after mastering them for a lifetime and in law school.

Kingsfield is a good reminder from the Paper Chase:

FixedDice

@OverRatedUnderAchiever said:
Depends on where you are going for this M.A. in Rhetoric. I'd say it is the closest thing that can benefit for the future in law school. If someone does well enough on the GRE to go for rhetoric at UC Berkley, doesn't is seem logical to apply with that?

I would think whether a specific subject is "the closest thing that can benefit for the future in law school" is a very, very, very subjective and debatable issue. One can argue that philosophy is the most suitable subject for future lawyers because of the sheer amount of logic involved. Or ethnic studies, which allow one to understand and analyze issues from more than one perspective. There's also natural sciences, as they train one to maintain an objective point of view. Good ol' history, which forces one to examine different sources from past events and craft arguments for various sides. The list goes on.

Besides, the GRE and the LSAT don't measure the exact same things.

OverRatedUnderAchiever

@Alex said:

@OverRatedUnderAchiever said:

@Alex said:

@OverRatedUnderAchiever said:

@estouten25 said:

@Alex said:

@FixedDice said:

@Alex said:
To me, the LSAC should regulate law schools like the AMA does medical schools.

...or the ABA should grow a spine. I was outraged when I learned the ABA decided not to take a stance regarding the GRE controversy.

Yeah, I actually meant ABA not LSAC. My bad on that lol.

But yeah, that seems to be the obvious answer here.

For example, half of the people who go to law school never practice law. Just imagine for a second that was the case for doctors practicing medicine? In Pakistan, it's actually been considered a humanitarian crisis that only 50% of female doctors end up practicing medicine. In America, it's just a foregone conclusion. Many law schools have ≤ 50% bar passage rates. The ABA needs to start shutting down/taking away accreditation for any school with these abysmal statistics.

Sounds like thomas jefferson might be the first once, and they deserve it

I can understand your point, however I would be interested in hearing your position on this: JY went and did everything an attorney does after passing the bar, and going to Ivy League schools, yet he found his career in helping us achieve success on the LSAT. Therefore, I do think there are many people who go to law school but chose not to continue practicing... does that make it the ABA liable for the decisions one makes after passing the bars, and not foregoing law practice?? I could easily be mixing up or missing the points, please let me know if I am. Just trying to figure it all out.

The thing is, there's a big difference between J.Y. going to Harvard Law School and choosing not to practice law and some poor chump who gets suckered into attending Thomas Jefferson School of Law (21% employment score/ <50% bar passage, 50k/yr in tuition) who ends up not being able to pass the bar or find a job. IIRC, J.Y. had the option to work at 2 different big law firms. The people who go to many of these schools don't have any choice to begin with.

Of course I don't think the ABA should be liable, nor the law schools, for people who pass the bar and/or ultimately choose to do something else all together. But again, I do think there are issues when schools are accepting applicants with LSATS in the 140s who will have a very tough time passing the bar or finding jobs at all. After all, I'm assuming people aren't choosing to be unemployed and looking for legal work.

We also always have to remember that the vast majority of people who go to law school do so to practice law. Any school that has less than ~80% of it's graduates working in law probably has some issues.

Understood. I think where one takes the bar as well as an impact too, significantly. For example in Florida there are too many lawyers in which most of them have few options other than to become 'ambulance chasers'. Most of those who took the FL bar, also attended the MANY law schools here as well... However, schools such as Nova Law admit anyone with a pulse & a score. Period. Shockingly, almost everyone I know who went there passed the bar the 1st time. It's pretty insane to think about the standards, but at the same time the University recently added the Law School, so it makes sense as to why their app pool gets admitted students. Perhaps schools such as Thomas Jefferson who are consistently providing evidence that they lack employment, bar passing, etc, then the ABA should step into the picture. Aside from this type of predicament, shouldn't we give upcoming and evolving law schools the chance to proving their thriving??

Yeah, I think I agree with that!

Although I ultimately think there are just too many law schools and lawyers already. period. If it were up to me, I'd just make sure that the requirements for accreditation were much higher. I don't think it would be unreasonable to implement a 75% employment/bar passage rating in order to be accredited. Even though it would probably mean all but the top 35-40 schools would have to close down. I think something along those lines would ensure schools don't just let in admits to get their money, but rather students who they believe they can turn into successful attorneys.

Idk, I'm sort of a cynical asshole about this entire thing. I personally know too many people who got screwed by going to law school to be objective about it. Plus, I think the numbers sort of speak for themselves. But apparently there's a percentage of people who go to these schools who do find employment and have successful careers. Who am I to tell them they shouldn't have the access to these lower ranked schools, you know?

Absolutely not, I totally agree with on this subject of debate... I wish it were brought up more though. Unfortunately we often get so caught up with T14, the same way high school students do about SAT scores & Ivy League Universities. I'd be remiss to not distinguish the difference between law school & undergrad academics, but I also feel disappointed that many (myself included) forget why being an attorney is our goal. Thinking of all these stats, and issues get me lost in translation of why I want to go on to be a lawyer in the first place. It is so hard to be selfless when we attach our personal benefits to the business.

Alex

@LSATSniper said:
This is my personal opinion. By lowering the bar, using the GRE in law school applications, the quality of legal education will go down. My feeling that quality doesn't matter anymore. I remember seeing Alan Derhoshivitz a little while go and he said he use to could tell if he saw the next supreme court justice or a leader of a fortune 500 company or next leader of the free world. Now, he says that the students he runs across are not quality. When you prep for the LSAT and a great score, you set yourself a higher level and you are saying I did it. I like the LSAT. It is a weapon that trains your brain to weed out stupid arguments. The skills on the LSAT that you learn are the same skills needed for legal reasoning. GRE doesn't teach those skills. Those are skills you will need to pass the bar exam. The LSAT is set of reasoning skills that you carry with you after mastering them for a lifetime and in law school.

Literally couldn't agree more

https://media.giphy.com/media/YGJBp5EgyVP9K/giphy.gif

OverRatedUnderAchiever

@LSATSniper said:
This is my personal opinion. By lowering the bar, using the GRE in law school applications, the quality of legal education will go down. My feeling that quality doesn't matter anymore. I remember seeing Alan Derhoshivitz a little while go and he said he use to could tell if he saw the next supreme court justice or a leader of a fortune 500 company or next leader of the free world. Now, he says that the students he runs across are not quality. When you prep for the LSAT and a great score, you set yourself a higher level and you are saying I did it. I like the LSAT. It is a weapon that trains your brain to weed out stupid arguments. The skills on the LSAT that you learn are the same skills needed for legal reasoning. GRE doesn't teach those skills. Those are skills you will need to pass the bar exam. The LSAT is set of reasoning skills that you carry with you after mastering them for a lifetime and in law school.

Kingsfield is a good reminder from the Paper Chase:

I think regardless of whether people like LSAT or GRE better, they will disagree on this particular comment. I'd recommend being a little bit more like Aristotle than Plato on this one...

FixedDice

@LSATSniper said:
This is my personal opinion. By lowering the bar, using the GRE in law school applications, the quality of legal education will go down. My feeling that quality doesn't matter anymore.

I'm waiting for the day my sick body is diagnosed and treated by physicians who were admitted to medical schools because of their performance on the Uniform CPA Examination.

Alex

@OverRatedUnderAchiever said:

@Alex said:

@OverRatedUnderAchiever said:

@Alex said:

@OverRatedUnderAchiever said:

@estouten25 said:

@Alex said:

@FixedDice said:

@Alex said:
To me, the LSAC should regulate law schools like the AMA does medical schools.

...or the ABA should grow a spine. I was outraged when I learned the ABA decided not to take a stance regarding the GRE controversy.

Yeah, I actually meant ABA not LSAC. My bad on that lol.

But yeah, that seems to be the obvious answer here.

For example, half of the people who go to law school never practice law. Just imagine for a second that was the case for doctors practicing medicine? In Pakistan, it's actually been considered a humanitarian crisis that only 50% of female doctors end up practicing medicine. In America, it's just a foregone conclusion. Many law schools have ≤ 50% bar passage rates. The ABA needs to start shutting down/taking away accreditation for any school with these abysmal statistics.

Sounds like thomas jefferson might be the first once, and they deserve it

I can understand your point, however I would be interested in hearing your position on this: JY went and did everything an attorney does after passing the bar, and going to Ivy League schools, yet he found his career in helping us achieve success on the LSAT. Therefore, I do think there are many people who go to law school but chose not to continue practicing... does that make it the ABA liable for the decisions one makes after passing the bars, and not foregoing law practice?? I could easily be mixing up or missing the points, please let me know if I am. Just trying to figure it all out.

The thing is, there's a big difference between J.Y. going to Harvard Law School and choosing not to practice law and some poor chump who gets suckered into attending Thomas Jefferson School of Law (21% employment score/ <50% bar passage, 50k/yr in tuition) who ends up not being able to pass the bar or find a job. IIRC, J.Y. had the option to work at 2 different big law firms. The people who go to many of these schools don't have any choice to begin with.

Of course I don't think the ABA should be liable, nor the law schools, for people who pass the bar and/or ultimately choose to do something else all together. But again, I do think there are issues when schools are accepting applicants with LSATS in the 140s who will have a very tough time passing the bar or finding jobs at all. After all, I'm assuming people aren't choosing to be unemployed and looking for legal work.

We also always have to remember that the vast majority of people who go to law school do so to practice law. Any school that has less than ~80% of it's graduates working in law probably has some issues.

Understood. I think where one takes the bar as well as an impact too, significantly. For example in Florida there are too many lawyers in which most of them have few options other than to become 'ambulance chasers'. Most of those who took the FL bar, also attended the MANY law schools here as well... However, schools such as Nova Law admit anyone with a pulse & a score. Period. Shockingly, almost everyone I know who went there passed the bar the 1st time. It's pretty insane to think about the standards, but at the same time the University recently added the Law School, so it makes sense as to why their app pool gets admitted students. Perhaps schools such as Thomas Jefferson who are consistently providing evidence that they lack employment, bar passing, etc, then the ABA should step into the picture. Aside from this type of predicament, shouldn't we give upcoming and evolving law schools the chance to proving their thriving??

Yeah, I think I agree with that!

Although I ultimately think there are just too many law schools and lawyers already. period. If it were up to me, I'd just make sure that the requirements for accreditation were much higher. I don't think it would be unreasonable to implement a 75% employment/bar passage rating in order to be accredited. Even though it would probably mean all but the top 35-40 schools would have to close down. I think something along those lines would ensure schools don't just let in admits to get their money, but rather students who they believe they can turn into successful attorneys.

Idk, I'm sort of a cynical asshole about this entire thing. I personally know too many people who got screwed by going to law school to be objective about it. Plus, I think the numbers sort of speak for themselves. But apparently there's a percentage of people who go to these schools who do find employment and have successful careers. Who am I to tell them they shouldn't have the access to these lower ranked schools, you know?

Absolutely not, I totally agree with on this subject of debate... I wish it were brought up more though. Unfortunately we often get so caught up with T14, the same way high school students do about SAT scores & Ivy League Universities. I'd be remiss to not distinguish the difference between law school & undergrad academics, but I also feel disappointed that many (myself included) forget why being an attorney is our goal. Thinking of all these stats, and issues get me lost in translation of why I want to go on to be a lawyer in the first place. It is so hard to be selfless when we attach our personal benefits to the business.

Fully in agreeance with you. I definitely think it's a conversation that needs to be had more often. I'm actually very pleased with this thread overall.

OverRatedUnderAchiever

@FixedDice said:

@OverRatedUnderAchiever said:
Depends on where you are going for this M.A. in Rhetoric. I'd say it is the closest thing that can benefit for the future in law school. If someone does well enough on the GRE to go for rhetoric at UC Berkley, doesn't is seem logical to apply with that?

I would think whether a specific subject is "the closest thing that can benefit for the future in law school" is a very, very, very subjective and debatable issue. One can argue that philosophy is the most suitable subject for future lawyers because of the sheer amount of logic involved. Or ethnic studies, which allow one to understand and analyze issues from more than one perspective. There's also natural sciences, as they train one to maintain an objective point of view. Good ol' history, which forces one to examine different sources from past events and craft arguments for various sides. The list goes on.

Besides, the GRE and the LSAT don't measure the exact same things.

I agree with your statement. However, debate is both logic & rhetoric... so yeah. Rhetoric's history is traced to the etymology of philosophers, which is also embedded into ability to argumentation. I'm just saying that as a double major in both Speech Communications & Philosophy, and perusing a masters in Rhetoric, is pretty good for law both in and out of a classroom. Just an opinion of mine. But yes, I agree with the initial statement for philosophy is easily the best subject to study in undergrad for a future in law school. Again, just an opinion of mine.

Eric25

@LSATSniper said:
This is my personal opinion. By lowering the bar, using the GRE in law school applications, the quality of legal education will go down. My feeling that quality doesn't matter anymore. I remember seeing Alan Derhoshivitz a little while go and he said he use to could tell if he saw the next supreme court justice or a leader of a fortune 500 company or next leader of the free world. Now, he says that the students he runs across are not quality. When you prep for the LSAT and a great score, you set yourself a higher level and you are saying I did it. I like the LSAT. It is a weapon that trains your brain to weed out stupid arguments. The skills on the LSAT that you learn are the same skills needed for legal reasoning. GRE doesn't teach those skills. Those are skills you will need to pass the bar exam. The LSAT is set of reasoning skills that you carry with you after mastering them for a lifetime and in law school.

Kingsfield is a good reminder from the Paper Chase:

Well said, so accurate!

tringo335

I agree with most on this thread. When I study the LSAT, I no longer complain because it's not like studying for a random test -- I treat it like studying for a degree in itself. You are literally training your brain to think an entirely different way -- the way Lawyers are supposed to think. The GRE can't teach you that *shrug

westcoastbestcoast

@Alex said:

@OverRatedUnderAchiever said:
This is crazy, does anyone care to use their opinions on why this is occurring? Theories, explainations, stats, etc??

Law school is (largely) a scam and this is an easy way to scam more students into 6 figure debt. At least this seems like the impetus for lower ranked schools to accept GRE. For both lower and higher ranked schools, it allows them to boost the amount of applicants.

ITs all about the $$$$

nessa.k13.0

@OverRatedUnderAchiever said:

@"nessa.k13.0" said:
One thing I’d be careful about before jumping to the GRE/dual degree ship is that some of those schools have pilot programs, where they are admitting a certain number of applicants with a GRE score instead of the LSAT. They are also mostly attempts to target non traditional J.D. candidates as applicants such as those with STEM backgrounds. Read the goals these law schools list on the GRE announcement page. If you’re a humanities/traditional type applicant, it looks like a bad idea to try to take the GRE to get into law school.

The main reason I take an interest in this discussion, and am so curious to see what people's opinions are, is due to the fact that I fall into a very odd area... regarding this topic. If someone is planning on attending law school after getting their M.A in Rhetoric, wouldn't it make sense to utilize the higher score, regardless of which test? I am genuinely interesting in hearing all opinions from all over the spectrum.
More advice please?

Take a look at the statements law school deans made when announcing that they will start accepting the GRE. I've come to the conclusion that it is not wise for those of us who have "traditional" applicant profiles with majors, masters degrees, and backgrounds in the humanities, social sciences, and non-STEM fields (M.A.s in Rhetoric included) to apply with the GRE. The problem I find with most applicants (who were going to apply to law school anyway) opting out of the LSAT for the GRE is, aside from Georgetown, deans from the other schools listed above have explicitly stated that their goal is to gain candidates with doctorate degrees or students with science, math, and engineering backgrounds.

Examples of such statements by law schools on the kinds of candidates they are trying to attract:
“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,” Rodriguez said. “Additionally, the GRE is offered a number of times throughout the year and in locations worldwide, making it easily accessible for prospective students.” 1

“As the college of Wake Forest University attracts more and more students with STEM backgrounds and interests, the law school should be prepared ... for an increasingly educationally diverse student body, with students who want to pursue a law degree, perhaps in combination with another graduate degree.” 2

Another reason I wouldn't automatically bank on the GRE for law school is because Arizona, Columbia, Cardozo, Harvard, Hawaii, Pace, St. John, and Wake Forrest, and a couple others have specifically stated that they are conducting studies or have pilot programs with a certain number of students admitted with the GRE as part of the school's trial. This indicates to me that it may not be the best idea for me to put my bet on getting into law school by taking the GRE, as I am not part of that group the law schools have stated they are trying to attract, and that the larger portion of the admitted class will be comprised of students who took the LSAT.

1. https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2017/august/northwestern-to-accept-gre-for-law-school-admission/
2. http://www.journalnow.com/news/local/wfu-school-of-law-will-accept-gre-and-lsat-from/article_977e1acd-c71c-5abd-a88e-53ef4c382e6e.html

https://today.tamu.edu/2017/11/13/texas-am-law-school-to-accept-gre-scores-from-applicants/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/08/08/georgetown-law-will-allow-applicants-submit-their-gre-scores/?utm_term=.f2bddf6f3a73

Eric25

@Alex maybe a movement is starting...
https://abovethelaw.com/2018/02/raising-the-bar-law-school-takes-bold-stance-no-lsat-scores-below-142/

Alex

@estouten25 said:
@Alex maybe a movement is starting...
https://abovethelaw.com/2018/02/raising-the-bar-law-school-takes-bold-stance-no-lsat-scores-below-142/

I hope so - that would be awesome!

I wish all schools would bump that 142 up to about a 151, though. At least that's about the average score. For god's sake, a 142 is still missing more than half (40ish out 100 qs of correct) the questions on the test. What kind of standard is getting 40% of the questions right on a test? Can we at least raise the standards to something where people are getting more questions right than wrong on the test, lol? Idk. Just doesn't seem like such a "bold stance" to me.

Eric25

@Alex said:

@estouten25 said:
@Alex maybe a movement is starting...
https://abovethelaw.com/2018/02/raising-the-bar-law-school-takes-bold-stance-no-lsat-scores-below-142/

I hope so - that would be awesome!

I wish all schools would bump that 142 up to about a 151, though. At least that's about the average score. For god's sake, a 142 is still missing more than half (40ish out 100 qs of correct) the questions on the test. What kind of standard is getting 40% of the questions right on a test? Can we at least raise the standards to something where people are getting more questions right than wrong on the test, lol? Idk. Just doesn't seem like such a "bold stance" to me.

Hah I think that's reasonable to ask of incoming students! At least that would help curve back the number of admissions and in turn, help curve the perspective job market. But then that leads right back to the problem of accepting the GRE its like an endless cycle...

tylerdschreur10

I think this thread brings up some very valid points. I'm particularly interested in the issue of "unqualified" students being accepted in to TTTT schools with a bleak future and a steep cost. While it's easy to point at Thomas Jefferson, for example, and say that they defraud students, I think that's an oversimplificiation.

There are students who passionately want to be lawyers, but for whatever reason strugglen with the LSAT. On this site we often preach the learnability of the test, and largely this is fair, but there are exceptions. If Johnny Jones has dreamed of working as a public defender his whole life, but can only manage a 145, does that mean he has to change his whole life plan?

There have to be schools there will except Johnny, because some of these students persevere and with hard work and teaching can become good or great lawyers. The bigger issue is that schools like Thomas Jefferson need to do a better job preparing their matriculants for the bar and a career.

Then you say set a minimum bar passage rate for accreditation, force the schools to train mkre effectively. But if your class is composed of low scorers, dismal GPAs and others dinged by better schools, it is inevitable that for every Johnny there are a few trust fund kids avoiding real life and directionless drifter who don't know what else to do after getting their Anthropology degree. It's impossible to fully sift these out in admissions, and they are unlikely to succeed even with the very best instructors, facilities and programs.

So while I agree change is necessary, i think it's more complicated than a simple minimum LSAT for acceptance or bar passage rate for accreditation.

FixedDice

@tylerdschreur10 said:
There are students who passionately want to be lawyers, but for whatever reason strugglen with the LSAT... If Johnny Jones has dreamed of working as a public defender his whole life, but can only manage a 145, does that mean he has to change his whole life plan?

There have to be schools there will except Johnny, because some of these students persevere and with hard work and teaching can become good or great lawyers.

This is not an issue about what one wants. It's about what he or she can do. If one doesn't have what is required to help others and him- or herself, then the field is just not for him or her.

If John Smith has dreamed of becoming a surgeon general for his whole life but his science GPA is 2.1 or his MCAT score only 472 (which I believe is the new minimum score on the exam), should he stick to his plans? Should he be allowed a chance to pick up scalpels and perform procedures that will greatly affect the future of not just himself, but at least one other human being?

Besides, law school is not the only path to the bar. Apprenticeship programs also exist.