Top Law Schools

Per Spivey. Source: https://twitter.com/SpiveyConsult/statu ... 2852760577

Thoughts?

shotgunheist wrote: Thoughts?

Restricting the number of times you can take the test places an artificial limit on revenue for LSAC.

albanach wrote:

shotgunheist wrote: Thoughts?

Restricting the number of times you can take the test places an artificial limit on revenue for LSAC.

Good thing Harvard can now stick it to the man by using the GRE


/s

But for real, I'm curious if this would create a larger socio-economic gap. Is there a limit that someone low income could take it due to money restrictions?

Honestly, I don't think this will make that much of a difference, outside of an increase in low-scorers with more (of their parents') money to blow.
I don't see the point in them doing this, but I take no issue with it.

Increases odds of someone getting lucky with a. Good score. So bad for splitters.

Considering how few people retake the test, let alone retake twice or more, I don't think this will make much of a difference.

I'm assuming they are changing because the much friendlier GRE is going to eat their lunch.

Also, if reports are to be believed, their test isn't better at predicting success which I find hilarious. There isn't much justification for keeping the LSAT other than habit.

They have only themselves and their antiquated methods to blame for their demise. I know I'm premature but I strongly dislike LSAC and their arrogance with their now ended monopoly.

Npret wrote:now ended monopoly.

still have applications on lock. I don't see their GPA processing being done away with, so the monopoly continues in that sense.

guybourdin wrote:

Npret wrote:now ended monopoly.

still have applications on lock. I don't see their GPA processing being done away with, so the monopoly continues in that sense.

Oh true. Though it would be great for a competitor to come in now LSAC doesn't have the only admissions test. I wonder how hard it is to get into the credential assembly/ law school accountability business.

Npret wrote:

guybourdin wrote:

Npret wrote:now ended monopoly.

still have applications on lock. I don't see their GPA processing being done away with, so the monopoly continues in that sense.

Oh true. Though it would be great for a competitor to come in now LSAC doesn't have the only admissions test. I wonder how hard it is to get into the credential assembly/ law school accountability business.

They would need to get accredited with the ABA in order to do that, right? I don't see it happening. the centralized law school admissions process is incredible! If it could be $50 cheaper, sure, $50 matters to a lot of people, but the time we save compared to other professional or graduate schools is worth so much more than that. Having talked to people about applying to law school before CAS and having applied to other graduate programs myself, I'll go ahead and shill pretty hard LSAC in that regard. I mean, can you imagine trying to coordinate with busy professors/law firm partners sending 3 LORs to a dozen schools and then needing to reapply the following year? take my money, please.

Step 1 of LSAC attempting to head off their elimination at the hands of the GRE.

Never understood why this seemingly arbitrary restriction existed in the first place. I'm all for it and don't think it will have a very large impact on the overall numbers, though I could be proven wrong. Just hope it doesn't create many more 170+s this cycle than there otherwise would have been...

Count me as a firm believer that an uptick in high scores will be minimal if at all extant. I just don't see how allowing someone to take the LSAT 4 times instead of 3 is going to facilitate a 160s scorer suddenly becoming a 170s scorer. Maybe more folks will take it instead of the GRE, especially math averse folks? A bit more money for LSAC in the grand scheme of things is about the only outcome I can reasonably foresee.

AJordan wrote:Count me as a firm believer that an uptick in high scores will be minimal if at all extant. I just don't see how allowing someone to take the LSAT 4 times instead of 3 is going to facilitate a 160s scorer suddenly becoming a 170s scorer. Maybe more folks will take it instead of the GRE, especially math averse folks? A bit more money for LSAC in the grand scheme of things is about the only outcome I can reasonably foresee.

+1. Hope you're correct

This seems bad to me. This favors people who can afford to retake forever, doesn't it?

Jack_Kelly wrote:This seems bad to me. This favors people who can afford to retake forever, doesn't it?

I think the only groups it could be bad for are mid-low 160s scorers and splitters.

There will be almost no one that has to take this thing 4-5+ times and finally ends up with a 170 (there's a reason 170+ is such a difficult score to achieve, and I don't think it's that people don't get enough takes). If someone is going to score on the high side, the vast majority of the time it is because they prepped well and knew what they were doing - not because they just took a million takes and finally got 'lucky'.

If anything, I think it will make scholarships harder to get for splitters in the T40 range, and will inflate the number of 'competitive' applicants in that pool.

Jack_Kelly wrote:This seems bad to me. This favors people who can afford to retake forever, doesn't it?

The fact that the LSAT is a highly learnable test already favors those who can devote the resources to studying. I don't care how many times you can actually take the test considering its the work you put in before the test that matters - simply being able to afford taking the test 4-5 times (which isn't a 1k commitment) doesn't matter when you're competing with people who can study 30, 40 hrs/wk for 4+ months. That's how money gets you the results - by being able to afford the prep work.

finally ending the excuse for people on this fora who won't lie and say "i can't retake because i've maxed out on tries"

AJordan wrote:Count me as a firm believer that an uptick in high scores will be minimal if at all extant. I just don't see how allowing someone to take the LSAT 4 times instead of 3 is going to facilitate a 160s scorer suddenly becoming a 170s scorer. Maybe more folks will take it instead of the GRE, especially math averse folks? A bit more money for LSAC in the grand scheme of things is about the only outcome I can reasonably foresee.

Agreed. If someone has taken the test three times in two years without overhauling their studying, I see no reason to believe they'll do so for their fourth take in two years.

How does this affect those who have already taken the test multiple times? I'm planning on taking for the third time in June, so does this mean if I need to retake in September again I can?

shinydunsparce wrote:How does this affect those who have already taken the test multiple times? I'm planning on taking for the third time in June, so does this mean if I need to retake in September again I can?

Seems to be the case.

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?

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.

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.