Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.4K All Categories
- 28K LSAT
- 17K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 12 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.1K Study Groups
- 111 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 25 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 636 Technical Problems
- 285 Off-topic
Related Discussions
ABA accreditation committee drops standardized testing
Chipster Study
Yearly Member
I just saw on Spivey twitter feed that the ABA is formally dropping requirement for standardized tests for admissions. They say more this cycle will accept GRE and GMAT with likely explosion next cycle (entering 2019.) Based on this, I think I might go with GRE. Easier test I have been told.
Comments
But wouldn't Law Schools still favor the LSAT due to the USNW ranking?
Not sure. I am wondering if the schools will have to report the GRE and GMAT scores of applicants with just those?? Thoughts?
No idea. But I really hope this does not shift Law School focuses onto GPA completely. I will be extremely sad as someone relying heavily on the LSAT to stand a chance for top schools.
That's assuming the USNW ranking system will still consider LSAT scores.
I read at the georgetown admissions site that GRE score would be included separately in the ABA reports so probably GRE scores would become equally important from the rankings perspective thereby diminishing the imporatnce of lsat scores i think. Also it seems that all schools have absolutely no preference when it comes to considering GRE or the LSAT. So GRE does indeed sound like a much better option but probably its gonna take a year or two worth of admissions data to see how the GRE scores play out. Based on the ETS calculator for gre to lsat score conversion, it becomes much easier to score in the the 170s since it is comparatively easier to score the equivalent in GRE. HOWEVER the way the scale of gre is established, it is would be very difficult to differentiate between applicants scoring in the upper ranges so others things are definitely going to come into consideration more. In my opinion GRE would be much easier for anybody and everybody but Its probably best to stick with LSAT for now. GRE would probably be useful for people who may apply 2-3 years from now i think when admissions data regarding the same is more abundant.
This is the ABA taking the easy and irresponsible way out of the whole admission test controversy. IMO, it should really learn to take a stance or kindly hand over its accreditation authority to another institution that will actually do some work.
I suppose we can expect to see the abolition of grading systems in law schools within a decade. Every law student will graduate with a shiny golden star sticker on his or her diploma.
Here's the link to the tweet:
Interesting. My good gpa may pay off more than I ever hoped it would! Kinda cuts into 7sages business a bit tho.
Maybe not. 7Sage has been trying to hire GRE and GMAT instructors for a while now.
If anything, this change will devalue high GPA students or reverse splitters even more since there is now going to be an additional pool of high GPA/high GRE or high GPA/high GMAT students. Schools that want to increase their medians will have a greater interest in taking the high GPA/high GRE combo over the high GPA/low LSAT student.
I think this really hurts low GPA students. If you could beat the odds and get a very hard to attain high LSAT you could really help yourself. I think there are going to be lots of high GRE scores around, so it is not going to be as valuable or as much help in offsetting a low GPA. High LSAT is more rare than a high GRE, and hence of more value to the schools and the rankings.
As a splitter slowly inching to my target shiney LSAT score, this is frustrating. Logically I know schools are not going to dump the LSAT completely, but why does this change have to happen the year I plan to apply???? Grrrrrrrr.
Back to fool proofing!
All the feels. While I understand the importance of GPA being a part of the decision, it shouldn't be the only way anyone has a chance at T14. Personally speaking, the way LSAC calculates the cGPA has me completely screwed and I'm relying heavily on a good LSAT score for a chance at T14, specifically Columbia or even Harvard. I'd hate for the option of a high LSAT score disappear for future applicants. Not everyone makes the best decisions or has the greatest of times during their undergrad years and the LSAT should remain as proof that one can still excel.
Completely agree -- I'm also one of those people hoping to offset my comparatively low GPA with a high LSAT score. I didn't make the best decisions my freshman year of university, and while I learned from them and got my crap together my sophomore year onwards, I feel like I'm being penalized for that now as I prepare to apply next cycle. Really hope schools don't scrap the LSAT.
That said, I always thought of the LSAT as a sort of barrier to entry against an already oversaturated market of lawyers/prospective lawyers. I'm guessing there's going to be a flood of people considering law school now, both individuals who really do want to practice law and others who are looking to hedge their bets/buy time/avoid the job market. I mean, the GRE and GMAT have their merits. They're arguably more accessible as tests (cost to prepare for, opportunities to take exams), and I'm sure this is great in terms of getting more qualified people who might otherwise not have considered law, but it seems like it's not a positive change, overall. Is there even a value in having the GRE or GMAT in lieu of the LSAT if we're not sure they're good predictors of law school/post law school success, or add value to prospective lawyers in some other aspect? I don't know if the LSAT is a good predictor of success, but I've learned a great deal by studying for it (hard work, perseverance, reading for structure, valid/invalid arguments, conditional logic, etc).
I always thought the LSAT was a weird way of assessing someone's ability to practice in Law School. When I first heard about it, I thought it would be a test on law itself. And then here I am, having "fun" with games and learning about the English language in a way I thought I never would. That being said, I think it is an excellent gauge for the most part to determine just how much effort someone is willing to put in to succeed since it is no easy test and a lot of people start off on the bottom. It's a test of practice, not of skill (unless you're one of the few geniuses or have had extensive exposure to logic). But there are plenty of successful and amazing lawyers out there who didn't so hot on the LSAT, so I suppose it is mostly an assessment of dedication.
On that account, that is also why I respect the LSAT and I enjoy preparing for it as much as it makes me want to rip my hair out sometimes. I feel like it has always been a crucial part of the law school application process and it should remain that way. GRE tests you based on what you know. As opposed as to just regurgitating information like we have become so accustomed to in our undergraduate years, the LSAT really shines in making you do self-driven work to succeed which is perfect for the law school.
I'm definitely going off topic. But main point is, I hope that the LSAT remains a crucial part of Law Schools or that they look for other ways besides GPA to allow applicants in. Personally, I attended community college due to financial issues and also dealt with crazy family problems during my first two years there. I didn't do so hot, but I was able to transfer to a great university where I will be graduating with a 3.9 after working super hard in a double major on top of a minor. I was absolutely devastated to learn that LSAC accounts for every single grade one has ever received. While I don't have a terrible cGPA, it is still extremely disheartening to learn that all my efforts in my last three years basically amounted to very little. Before I go onto a super rant on how upset I am about that system, I suppose my point is that the LSAT should definitely remain as a way for T14 to not just toss out anyone's application just because they earned a less than stellar GPA.
I completely agree! I think I might've edited my post after you quoted me, but you've describe my feelings about this test exactly. I genuinely enjoy studying for it, and I actually find PTs fun. Yeah, I feel frustrated and want to chuck tests out the window sometimes (okay, all the time), but I've learned so much from this exam. I was one of those kids who (idiotically, in retrospect) refused to study for the SAT because it was a waste of time, but I want to put in work for the LSAT because I think it has value in and of itself, beyond being just another standardized exam. Just learning about formal logic and flawed arguments was kind of amazing for me (it's changed the way I look at the world and interact with people, honestly). And while there are ways in which the exam is lacking, for example, by being cost-prohibitive in many aspects and offered only a few times a year, I believe it's an overall valuable part of the admissions process.
GREs have ScoreSelect, where candidates who take the GRE more than once can pick what scores they want to report, which the LSAT obviously doesn't have. Has anyone seen articles on this?
Oh no... I don't have GPA. Now I have no idea how it's going to turn out...
This is something that was mentioned in an email from an lsat teacher, with the subject "Should you avoid the LSAT and take the GRE instead?" I don't know if the information is valid but it's a perspective that I haven't seen mentioned yet in this thread so I thought I'd share.
"The GRE’s a much easier exam, and it’s much easier to get a higher-percentile score on it than on the LSAT. And law schools KNOW it's easier to get a high-percentile score on the GRE because the competition isn't as tough. A lot of the lower-tier law schools that’ll eventually take the GRE as an alternative don’t actually plan to accept “LSAT-avoiders.” They actually just want to accept applications from GRE-takers so they can deny you and get a boost in the US News rankings by increasing their selectivity."
Has anyone found an official article/page related to this? Lot of pointless speculation in the entire thread.
Unless you're planning to study for years, it really doesn't matter. That person's subsequent tweet also says nothing will impact the 2018/2019 cycle.
If it is as easy as people say it is, they'll probably just make the GRE harder.
I think the GRE is labeled as "easy" primarily because we're comparing it to the LSAT. It's a test of regurgitating what you know (like pretty much every class in your undergrad years) as opposed to practicing and mastering a skill which is the LSAT. I really hope they still keep the LSAT.
But it is not unreasonable to study for a year or two for these tests particularly when they are as important to admissions and scholarships as the LSAT has been in admissions.
So for someone starting out right now we are squarely at the center of the point where uncertainty about which test to take is the worst.
Say the LSAT is best for next cycle for a law school applicant, but because it is easier and has a less competitive pool of takers the GRE will be best at some point in the future possibly the year after, which do you take? What if you are not sure if you will be ready for the LSAT this cycle? What if taking the LSAT makes you an LSAT applicant with that LSAT score automatically reported and will mean you cannot just switch over to the GRE in the future? This is a complicated matrix of information to make decisions in when over a hundred thousand dollars is often at stake.
Despite this cycle's competitiveness I'm glad I applied now rather than later. For me the limited number of schools taking the GRE(one in the Top 14 when I started my application and studying process the Christmas before last) made for an easy decision process. You took the LSAT and if it didn't go as well as you hoped there was no real tragedy. You just studied and retook until you had a good enough score for your ambitions to be satisfied. It was a test of your ability, your ambition, and your resolve. Now the shifting landscape has transformed that into a challenge of who can successfully navigate uncertain waters in addition to who has those qualities. Some are going to get through by lucking into the best path, others by skill, but many will flunder through no fault of their own other than that they could not predict the future. That floundering could be a $150,000 current dollar mistake and it could also be the difference between a succesful legal career and a failed one.
For the risk adverse law school applicant that uncertainty is undoubtedly bad. The broader question is whether whatever balance between the GRE and LSAT and also GPA and softs emerges in the future will be better or worse for different hypothetical applicants. Will GPA be emphasized more? Will softs replace the LSAT helping experienced applicants, but also those rich and connected enough to get whatever becomes the coveted experience?
For the schools the following questions may seem pressing. In the face of student bodies which are less well deliniated based on LSAT score will the dominance of the Top 14 or 13 in prestigious job placement endure? Will there be a reason for schools to offer an appreciable number of students full or nearly full tuition scholarships if many students have basically indistinguishable hard numbers due to the ease of scoring highly on the GRE and the subsequent deemphazising of standardized tests? And of course will students remain as bound to the US News rankings as they always have been if school no longer serves as a means to indicate your approximate LSAT score to future employers?
Edit: I just wanted to add some more speculation since you enjoyed everyone elses so much. : )
IMO it is easier. However, it is not a test of "regurgitation." It simply tests different skills. I found it easier because I have a strong background in math through undergrad and grad school but it could be more challenging for people who has not done math for some time.
Surely law schools will still prefer to use the LSAT, provided that the LSAT does indeed act as a better indicator of law school success as compared to other exams?
With how specialized the LSAT is, I find it hard to believe that an exam with a math section like the GRE would be a better/equal predictor of law school success than the LSAT.
I could be wrong though, and if so then I think LSAC deserves this comeuppance. What a fantastic failure it would be if it turned out that the GRE was just as useful as the LSAT!
You do know this is the internet right?
I think it may eventually hurt diversity (even though the schools are claiming that this is about encouraging it), in the sense that with multiple tests being used for admissions, the LSAT may lose its status as the great equalizer and school prestige and GPA will play a bigger role. With so many 98-99th percentile scores floating around in your admissions queue between the 2-3 tests accepted why give the person with a few flaws in their app a shot? Those with 7-8 semesters of straight A's from a prestigious school may be hard to turn down. So a lot of people who might've previously been able to atone for past mistakes with a top LSAT may well end up losing out on opportunities. I'm sure top percentiles will still be needed for the T20, but again, I wonder about how it will affect diversity.
I understand the LSAT is tough, and maybe the LSAC does deserve some punishment for being so strict about access to materials, which makes it hard for many people to afford good prep, but I'm not sure drawing in more applicants at a time when the legal field is already fairly saturated makes much sense. Law schools really should probably be more regulated than they are.
But even with this schools require all scores and it's a C&F violation if you don't. Harvard stated they'd revoke a JD if multiple GRE scores exist and were not reported in their presentation last Fall.
Good to know. Never took the GRE, but it makes sense that all scores are required.
How accurate is this ETS conversion score tool? Do you think law schools will use it? A 167V & 166Q give you a 173 LSAT. Also do you guys think more law schools (such as Stanford/Yale/UChicago) will start accepting GRE for the 2018/2019 cycle?
https://www.ets.org/gre/institutions/about/law/comparison_tool?WT.ac=gre_law_comparison_180302&utm_source=general&utm_medium=general&utm_campaign=gre&utm_content=law_comparison
ETS conversion tool is silly, imo. LSAT will always have more weight than GRE/GMAT scores in law school admissions, but I think this development is a good thing for law school admissions and the legal field. Logical ability is not always the best indicator of success in law school, nor in the legal profession, and I'm sure there are plenty of GRE-takers/GMAT-takers who are simply better students than those who have performed extraordinarily well on the LSAT.
I'm not really sure how this could "hurt diversity," either. Anyone care to make that argument?
@Micolash I agree with you. Also, I think his is probably just a way for law schools to make a little more $$$ in app fees. IMHO, when anything huge like this changes, it's always good to ask "who's gonna make the most money out of this?"
I think it is a way to juice their number of applicants and also tuition paying students. The law schools would not be pushing for this change if it was going to hurt them.
I just want to throw out there that accepting a plan means absolutely nothing definitive. Any comments on this are entirely speculative. This may as well say they are strongly considering possibly one day in the next 2 decades enacting the decision to...
Yeah, @"surfy surf" is right.
The ABA has posted a longer article about this decision here: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ABA_legal_education_council_rule_change_end_admission_test_requirement?icn=most_read
Quoting from the article: "Under ABA rules, standards revisions go to the House of Delegates. The House can send a proposed rule back to the council twice for review with or without recommendations, but the council has the final decision on matters related to law school accreditation."
Also, apparently is was a 9-8 vote and usually, when its that close, they don't move ahead with the motion. This suggests to me that it might not automatically become policy.
Another quote on the effects of the policy: “We expect that our member schools will continue to use the LSAT for substantially all of their admissions to provide transparency and fairness by evaluating all applicants using common and consistent standards,” she wrote in an email. “As a result, while these changes shift the responsibility for fair admission practices from the ABA to law schools, we do not anticipate significant changes for the vast majority of law schools or their applicants.”
Just a thought here.. but I could think of a reason why this could and would be used: rich applicants with sucky scores. A school could let in a rich and/or famously connected applicant without requiring a test score, right? They don't bring down the lsat average, while pumping money into the school.
A little conspiracy-ish, but hey.. schools are also a business. We know this. Making it easier to accept, say, George Z. Bush someday, if he can't do well on the tests, without him upsetting your averages would be of interest to them, right? Total win.
I don't see them throwing out the lsat too much if US news still weighs it as heavily. Worst case, it'll still be a few years while they iron out all the details if there is to be a massive upheaval in school policies.
That may work right now as a way to backdoor applicants with shaky LSAT scores, but US News will probably start weighing schools based on GRE medians too. In the end, that is what will determine whether and to what degree schools use the LSAT.
US News claims it uses medians (https://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/articles/law-schools-methodology). If that really is the case, then there's no reason for law schools to go through this whole controversy so they can admit a few "privileged" applicants with low LSAT scores.
Spivey seems to think that it will open the floodgates for GRE in cycle after next. I guess we will see.