Npret wrote:nerd1 wrote:KMart wrote:Platopus wrote:Rigo wrote:Platopus wrote:Any one else think that this signals the beginning of much more impactful changes from LSAC, including maybe the possibility to select which scores to send to schools?
Not sure that's that impactful.
IdK being able to take 8 times in 2 years and only send them that final 174 seems like a big deal.
schools only really look at that 174 and, in all honesty, if you're taking it 8 times that shows some serious dedication
Those people are not dedicated. They are just very very inefficient or dumb. It is problematic that people can take so many times and just present the highest score. Too low a bar for anyone wanting to become a lawyer. Too many law schools and lawyers. More and more intense competition among lawyers together with the decline in value of the average lawyer.
But the Harvard study showed the LSAT wasn't more predictive of law school success than the GRE.
The LSAT was an artificial and unnecessary gatekeeper that kept out people while allowing people who could study for it and learn it to overcome the problems with their GPA or softless lives.
I don't think using the LSAT to keep people out is the best way to limit law school admissions.
I am interested to see what happens in the next 5 years with the GRE.
How do you measure whether the GRE predicts law school success when law students don't take the GRE?
Sure, some law students consider other types of grad school and take it, but are they a representative sample of all law students?