Chicago law schools consider accepting GRE Forum

[chicagoburger]

I also want to add a paragraph before the article:
The American Bar Association, which governs most U.S. law schools, announced in 2014 a rule that allows law schools to relax their policy on the LSAT.

Up to 10 percent of a school's entering class can be admitted without taking the LSAT, but the applicants must matriculate from the university's undergraduate college, or​ pursue another degree in addition to their J.D.

The applicants must also be at the top of their class. According to the ABA, "Applicants admitted must have scored at the 85th percentile nationally, or above, on a standardized college or graduate admissions test, specifically the ACT, SAT, GRE, or GMAT; and must have ranked in the top 10% of their undergraduate class through six semesters of academic work, or achieved a cumulative GPA of 3.5 or above through six semesters of academic work." ​​


Chicago law schools consider accepting GRE

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ ... story.html

In a move that shirks a tradition as old as baby boomers, law schools around the country are starting to consider accepting an admission test other than the LSAT. And Chicago-area schools are watching closely.

The University of Arizona College of Law started it. Early last year, it announced that it would accept either the GRE graduate school entry exam or the LSAT law school aptitude test from applicants.

Around the country, law school deans' heads turned.

Then in March, Harvard Law School, a pioneer among its peers, announced plans to start accepting GRE scores for admission as part of a pilot program. Now, Northwestern University's Pritzker School of Law in Chicago is studying the possibility of accepting the GRE.

In this new digital age, it’s easy to assume change is limited to only technology, but it encompasses society and demographics as well—basically the very nature of work itself.

"This is a new world. Law schools are looking at much more sophisticated data," said Daniel Rodriguez, dean of Northwestern's law school. "It's just simply a matter of time, and probably a short amount of time, before the hegemony of the LSAT will destabilize and law schools will be looking at other criteria for admission.

"The question is, Who wants to be the first movers?"

For law schools, accepting another, more user-friendly admission test in addition to the LSAT could mean more applicants and a more diverse class — ethnically and academically.

But it could also mean teetering on the brink of noncompliance with standards from the legal education section of the American Bar Association, which contracts with the U.S. Department of Education to accredit law schools.

Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law is seen May 25, 2017, in Chicago. The law school has hired an outside firm to conduct a study to see if the GRE test is as valid as the LSAT in predicting law school success. (Phil Velasquez/Chicago Tribune)
Currently, if an accredited school wants to start using an alternative admission test, like the GRE, it is required to demonstrate that test is as valid as the LSAT in predicting law school success.

Northwestern's law school had enough students who had taken both tests to gather data, and it hired an outside firm to conduct a study, Rodriguez said. Educational Testing Service, the Princeton, N.J.-based nonprofit that administers the GRE, is conducting a national validity study, which it plans to complete by August, involving more than a dozen law schools, including John Marshall Law School in Chicago.

But many schools, some of which don't have the resources or data to conduct their own studies, are waiting to see what changes the bar association makes in its requirements.

At a hearing scheduled for July 13, the Chicago-based association plans to vote on changes to its admission test standards that would allow it to begin determining whether alternative tests are valid. That could mean the more than 200 ABA-accredited law schools wouldn't have to conduct their own studies.

"Why undertake a somewhat primitive study on our own if a professional one is forthcoming?" said Harold Krent, dean of the Illinois Institute of Technology's Chicago-Kent College of Law.

Law schools around the country could benefit from a standard validation, Krent said. "Then we could move on and take our pick."

Each school is different, as are its students. Krent, for example, said he did much better on the GRE than the LSAT.

Deans argue that the GRE, administered multiple times weekly, often via computer, is more accessible than the LSAT, administered four times each year at designated testing centers.

The Law School Admission Council, which administers the LSAT, is taking steps to change that. It recently announced it will lift the limit on the number of times a person can take the test in a two-year period, starting with the September test.

"Our board of trustees thought that the test limitation might be an unnecessary impediment to test takers," spokeswoman Wendy Margolis wrote in an email. "This new policy could change if LSAC observes abuse."

More changes are coming, Margolis said. But the organization maintains that the movement toward the GRE did not spark the changes.

The number of people applying to law school has been dropping since 2010, according to data provided by LSAC, and some law school deans argue that accepting a more accessible test could help reverse that trend. About 54,500 people applied to start school in fall 2015, down almost 38 percent from five years earlier.

But it's not just in the numbers, Northwestern's Rodriguez said. Students with more diverse areas of study, such as science or technology, who are still making career decisions aren't taking the LSAT, he said. They're taking the GRE.

"All things being equal, when you're looking at a more diverse cohort, you want to provide ample opportunities for students who have prepared themselves in more eclectic ways," Rodriguez said.

Both tests have been administered for almost 70 years, but the LSAT has long been the sole admission test for law schools.

Reconsidering how things are done is "appropriate, considering the pace of change today," said University of Illinois College of Law Dean Vikram Amar, whose college is not on the verge of changing any policies. But trepidation can be just as appropriate.

"The legal profession is changing, and law schools are adapting to it," Amar said. "But change isn't always progress. ... Law is a discipline that values tradition, and I think there are some good things about that."

[Npret]

This is great.
Lol at Illinois acting like some standard bearer for doing things "the right way."

[cavalier1138]

Thank goodness you copy/pasted the entire article into the body of this post. I have no idea what I would have done if I'd had to click the link to read the text.

And just hilarious that law school deans think declining enrollment is because they aren't accepting a different test score for entry. It couldn't have anything to do with the dismal employment market for law graduates; must be the test.

[chicagoburger]

Thank goodness you copy/pasted the entire article into the body of this post. I have no idea what I would have done if I'd had to click the link to read the text.

And just hilarious that law school deans think declining enrollment is because they aren't accepting a different test score for entry. It couldn't have anything to do with the dismal employment market for law graduates; must be the test.

You are welcome, smart guy

[grades??]

Prediction: a year from now, every top 13 school accepts the gre, minus Yale. Because that would be a Yale move.

[chicagoburger]

Prediction: a year from now, every top 13 school accepts the gre, minus Yale. Because that would be a Yale move.

I will second this. It's simple game theory.

[Npret]

Prediction: a year from now, every top 13 school accepts the gre, minus Yale. Because that would be a Yale move.

I will second this. It's simple game theory.

Well yes we've been saying this all along but I don't know why Yale would be any different if they have dual degree students that will now only have to take one exam.

[cavalier1138]

I'm still baffled by the positive reception of this trend.

We still don't have enough legal jobs to accommodate the number of new graduates. So why does that indicate that we need to decrease barriers to entry? There's no evidence to suggest that the GRE will somehow help with diversity (unless that test is exempt from the general critique that all standardized tests are inherently biased against people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds). The only "benefit" I see is that law schools get to increase their applicant pool and appear more selective.

[Npret]

I'm still baffled by the positive reception of this trend.

We still don't have enough legal jobs to accommodate the number of new graduates. So why does that indicate that we need to decrease barriers to entry? There's no evidence to suggest that the GRE will somehow help with diversity (unless that test is exempt from the general critique that all standardized tests are inherently biased against people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds). The only "benefit" I see is that law schools get to increase their applicant pool and appear more selective.

Because the LSAT is ineffective/not more effective than the GRE and isn't needed. Why should there be a whole industry supporting something that isn't necessary or beneficial? Why should students have to deal with taking the paper exam only 4 times a year instead of at the time that's best for them?
People hold on to the LSAT but if it isn't better than the GRE, what's the point. It's just punitive to law applicants for no purpose.

[chicagoburger]

I'm still baffled by the positive reception of this trend.

We still don't have enough legal jobs to accommodate the number of new graduates. So why does that indicate that we need to decrease barriers to entry? There's no evidence to suggest that the GRE will somehow help with diversity (unless that test is exempt from the general critique that all standardized tests are inherently biased against people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds). The only "benefit" I see is that law schools get to increase their applicant pool and appear more selective.

Because the LSAT is ineffective/not more effective than the GRE and isn't needed. Why should there be a whole industry supporting something that isn't necessary or beneficial? Why should students have to deal with taking the paper exam only 4 times a year instead of at the time that's best for them?
People hold on to the LSAT but if it isn't better than the GRE, what's the point. It's just punitive to law applicants for no purpose.

Not to mention A B C D E sitting in number 1 2 3 4 5 seat. Ask Ginsburg to do one set and see if she agrees that's torture.

[blueapple]

I'm still baffled by the positive reception of this trend.

We still don't have enough legal jobs to accommodate the number of new graduates. So why does that indicate that we need to decrease barriers to entry? There's no evidence to suggest that the GRE will somehow help with diversity (unless that test is exempt from the general critique that all standardized tests are inherently biased against people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds). The only "benefit" I see is that law schools get to increase their applicant pool and appear more selective.

Because the LSAT is ineffective/not more effective than the GRE and isn't needed. Why should there be a whole industry supporting something that isn't necessary or beneficial? Why should students have to deal with taking the paper exam only 4 times a year instead of at the time that's best for them?
People hold on to the LSAT but if it isn't better than the GRE, what's the point. It's just punitive to law applicants for no purpose.

I think having to take an exam specific to law schools is an important and beneficial purpose of the LSAT. I agree with cavalier -- If it isn't going to be difficult to get into law school, we shouldn't remove the one barrier that requires someone to think long and hard before going 3 years into massive debt without any guarantee of a legal job on the other side.

[Npret]

I'm still baffled by the positive reception of this trend.

We still don't have enough legal jobs to accommodate the number of new graduates. So why does that indicate that we need to decrease barriers to entry? There's no evidence to suggest that the GRE will somehow help with diversity (unless that test is exempt from the general critique that all standardized tests are inherently biased against people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds). The only "benefit" I see is that law schools get to increase their applicant pool and appear more selective.

Because the LSAT is ineffective/not more effective than the GRE and isn't needed. Why should there be a whole industry supporting something that isn't necessary or beneficial? Why should students have to deal with taking the paper exam only 4 times a year instead of at the time that's best for them?
People hold on to the LSAT but if it isn't better than the GRE, what's the point. It's just punitive to law applicants for no purpose.

I think having to take an exam specific to law schools is an important and beneficial purpose of the LSAT. I agree with cavalier -- If it isn't going to be difficult to get into law school, we shouldn't remove the one barrier that requires someone to think long and hard before going 3 years into massive debt without any guarantee of a legal job on the other side.

But the LSAT isn't a better predictor of law school success so it's just adding cost and hoop jumping that isn't needed. I don't know maybe people are worried about the competition now that the GRE is acceptable.

Plenty of people go to law school without thinking long and hard about it. In fact even from this forum it seems the vast majority of applicants who have taken the LSAT. don't think about debt and job prospects. The LSAT doesn't mean that people will spend more time thinking about their choices.

If you wanted people to think about their future then they should have to take a course on loans, loan repayment and job prospects. I'm guessing almost all of the 0Ls on this forum have no idea of their debt at repayment and the amount of their monthly loan repayment

[blueapple]

Plenty of people go to law school without thinking long and hard about it. In fact even from this forum it seems the vast majority of applicants who have taken the LSAT. don't think about debt and job prospects. The LSAT doesn't mean that people will spend more time thinking about their choices.

Yes, you're correct. I just mean that removing the LSAT means those people will spend even less time thinking about their choices and people who would never have applied to law school in the first place don't even have to go through the smallest of hoops before applying.

If you wanted people to think about their future then they should have to take a course on loans, loan repayment and job prospects. I'm guessing almost all of the 0Ls on this forum have no idea what of their debt and repayment and the amount of their monthly loan repayment

Sure! That would be great. But that's not what we're talking about.

[cavalier1138]

I'm still baffled by the positive reception of this trend.

We still don't have enough legal jobs to accommodate the number of new graduates. So why does that indicate that we need to decrease barriers to entry? There's no evidence to suggest that the GRE will somehow help with diversity (unless that test is exempt from the general critique that all standardized tests are inherently biased against people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds). The only "benefit" I see is that law schools get to increase their applicant pool and appear more selective.

Because the LSAT is ineffective/not more effective than the GRE and isn't needed. Why should there be a whole industry supporting something that isn't necessary or beneficial? Why should students have to deal with taking the paper exam only 4 times a year instead of at the time that's best for them?
People hold on to the LSAT but if it isn't better than the GRE, what's the point. It's just punitive to law applicants for no purpose.

But what's the "punitive" aspect? Who isn't taking the LSAT who otherwise would? And since the very limited number of available studies are being done on students who took both tests, who is succeeding on the GRE who wouldn't succeed on the LSAT?

If the issue is that it's not administered enough times throughout the year, it sounds like LSAC is taking steps to change that, whether it's necessary or not. If the issue is that the reliance on LSAT scores isn't helping with class diversity, I don't see how the GRE is a solution. If the issue is "accessibility", I haven't heard a single argument explaining why law schools that are already turning out too many graduates need to be more accessible.

Also, I'd really avoid claiming that the LSAT isn't a better predictor of law school success until there's more data. That may be true, but the limited data on the subject just isn't conclusive at this time.

[Npret]

I'm still baffled by the positive reception of this trend.

We still don't have enough legal jobs to accommodate the number of new graduates. So why does that indicate that we need to decrease barriers to entry? There's no evidence to suggest that the GRE will somehow help with diversity (unless that test is exempt from the general critique that all standardized tests are inherently biased against people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds). The only "benefit" I see is that law schools get to increase their applicant pool and appear more selective.

Because the LSAT is ineffective/not more effective than the GRE and isn't needed. Why should there be a whole industry supporting something that isn't necessary or beneficial? Why should students have to deal with taking the paper exam only 4 times a year instead of at the time that's best for them?
People hold on to the LSAT but if it isn't better than the GRE, what's the point. It's just punitive to law applicants for no purpose.

But what's the "punitive" aspect? Who isn't taking the LSAT who otherwise would? And since the very limited number of available studies are being done on students who took both tests, who is succeeding on the GRE who wouldn't succeed on the LSAT?

If the issue is that it's not administered enough times throughout the year, it sounds like LSAC is taking steps to change that, whether it's necessary or not. If the issue is that the reliance on LSAT scores isn't helping with class diversity, I don't see how the GRE is a solution. If the issue is "accessibility", I haven't heard a single argument explaining why law schools that are already turning out too many graduates need to be more accessible.

Also, I'd really avoid claiming that the LSAT isn't a better predictor of law school success until there's more data. That may be true, but the limited data on the subject just isn't conclusive at this time.

You might avoid characterizing the LSAT as not as good as the GRE but it's good enough so far. If these studies weren't positive we wouldn't be hearing about them.

I get it. You guys want the LSAT as some kind of protective mechanism but I see it as designed to predict success. It wasn't meant to be a barrier keeping people out for their own good. It certainly isn't designed with that protectionist goal in mind.

[cavalier1138]

I get it. You guys want the LSAT as some kind of protective mechanism but I see it as designed to predict success. It wasn't meant to be a barrier keeping people out for their own good. It certainly isn't designed with that protectionist goal in mind.

No, but it's designed to (at the very least) have people who are interested in the law take a test that is specific to that professional field. Of course it's meant to be a barrier to entry. If it weren't, then there would be no need to have a test at all; schools would just have ad comms make decisions based on personal statements and gut instinct.

It's not that I want the LSAT to "protect" anything. But I don't see the point in further opening up an oversaturated professional field. I still haven't seen any answers as to who benefits from this change.

[guynourmin]

Because the LSAT is ineffective/not more effective than the GRE and isn't needed.

the LSAT isn't a better predictor of law school success

I didn't realize this was established. I know the article CB posted isn't the end all be all here, but quotes from the article certainly sound less concrete than you do here. Specifically,

[Northwestern] has hired an outside firm to conduct a study to see if the GRE test is as valid as the LSAT in predicting law school success.

and

"Why undertake a somewhat primitive study on our own if a professional one is forthcoming?" said Harold Krent

Can you point to the published studies that show the LSAT is not more effective than the GRE at predicting law school success? I haven't seen those yet. May want to pass them along to Mr. Krent, too, because it sounds like he is still waiting for them as well.

[chicagoburger]

I get it. You guys want the LSAT as some kind of protective mechanism but I see it as designed to predict success. It wasn't meant to be a barrier keeping people out for their own good. It certainly isn't designed with that protectionist goal in mind.

No, but it's designed to (at the very least) have people who are interested in the law take a test that is specific to that professional field. Of course it's meant to be a barrier to entry. If it weren't, then there would be no need to have a test at all; schools would just have ad comms make decisions based on personal statements and gut instinct.

It's not that I want the LSAT to "protect" anything. But I don't see the point in further opening up an oversaturated professional field. I still haven't seen any answers as to who benefits from this change.

The Korean government limits the number of the law school students in Korea (around 2000/year). There is a hard cap on headcount of each law school in Korea. Maybe ABA should do that as well.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I don't get people's investment in keeping the LSAT. It doesn't actually serve as a barrier to entry; there are already law schools in this country that will take basically any LSAT score. People are just worried someone may be able to get into the school *they got into* without having to get the same LSAT they did. Too bad?

The LSAT is also only specific to law school because it's the test they give you to get into law school (the correlation between the LSAT *alone* and 1L grades is not very large). It's not magically testing ability to be a lawyer, at all. (And every year people who did poorly on the LSAT do well enough in school to transfer to top schools; it's a pretty blunt instrument.)

Personally I like the idea of reducing LSAC's monopoly. People here complain about LSAC's practices all the time; this is what finally is making them change those (eliminating limits on retakes and adding additional test dates).

[Npret]

Because the LSAT is ineffective/not more effective than the GRE and isn't needed.

the LSAT isn't a better predictor of law school success

I didn't realize this was established. I know the article CB posted isn't the end all be all here, but quotes from the article certainly sound less concrete than you do here. Specifically,

[Northwestern] has hired an outside firm to conduct a study to see if the GRE test is as valid as the LSAT in predicting law school success.

and

"Why undertake a somewhat primitive study on our own if a professional one is forthcoming?" said Harold Krent

Can you point to the published studies that show the LSAT is not more effective than the GRE at predicting law school success? I haven't seen those yet. May want to pass them along to Mr. Krent, too, because it sounds like he is still waiting for them as well.

Harvard and ArizonaState haven't published their studies as far as I know. We just have to accept the experts I guess

[Npret]

I don't get people's investment in keeping the LSAT. It doesn't actually serve as a barrier to entry; there are already law schools in this country that will take basically any LSAT score. People are just worried someone may be able to get into the school *they got into* without having to get the same LSAT they did. Too bad?

The LSAT is also only specific to law school because it's the test they give you to get into law school (the correlation between the LSAT *alone* and 1L grades is not very large). It's not magically testing ability to be a lawyer, at all. (And every year people who did poorly on the LSAT do well enough in school to transfer to top schools; it's a pretty blunt instrument.)

Personally I like the idea of reducing LSAC's monopoly. People here complain about LSAC's practices all the time; this is what finally is making them change those (eliminating limits on retakes and adding additional test dates).

Me as well. I actually don't understand the resistance to this change.

[guynourmin]

Because the LSAT is ineffective/not more effective than the GRE and isn't needed.

the LSAT isn't a better predictor of law school success

I didn't realize this was established. I know the article CB posted isn't the end all be all here, but quotes from the article certainly sound less concrete than you do here. Specifically,

[Northwestern] has hired an outside firm to conduct a study to see if the GRE test is as valid as the LSAT in predicting law school success.

and

"Why undertake a somewhat primitive study on our own if a professional one is forthcoming?" said Harold Krent

Can you point to the published studies that show the LSAT is not more effective than the GRE at predicting law school success? I haven't seen those yet. May want to pass them along to Mr. Krent, too, because it sounds like he is still waiting for them as well.

Harvard and ArizonaState haven't published their studies as far as I know. We just have to accept the experts I guess

H's study only studied HLS students. You cannot point to that study and then use it as evidence for the quotes you've said above because of how small a slice of law students generally an HLS-specific study would cover (overwhelmingly top 2% LSAT scores so FAR from representative of the entire testing pool). I think you are level-headed enough to agree with this but would love to hear if you don't.

It is possible, maybe even likely, that the studies that will come out over the next couple years prove you are correct, but as of now your response is severely lacking imo and I don't understand how you can say something like the LSAT isn't a better predictor of law school success on the basis of a single study ASU had ETS conduct and hasn't published. Yes, the same ETS that administers the GRE and has a financial stake in the GRE being accepted by law schools is who conducted ASU's study.

fwiw, I have no problem with the GRE being accepted. Having taken both, I know just how much more accessible the GRE can be and I am satisfied with those kinds of access equality arguments at least on a trial basis until more studies can be done. I just do not believe we have anywhere close to enough information to make the arguments you are advancing.

[Impressionist]

It's UofA law, not ASU.

Regardless, LSAC must be sweating bullets. If the studies don't go their way, say goodbye to their hegemony. I wonder what other measures LSAC could take to mitigate the problem, akin to their removing the 2 year cap. Maybe increase the number of times each year the test happens? Shortening it by getting rid of the written section? I do expect more action from them, whatever it is.

[Future Ex-Engineer]

Unpopular/unstated (but I expect underlying) opinion:

I don't like the idea of moving away from the LSAT, because scoring well on it makes me feel superior to those who either 1) didn't put in the same time and effort trying to perform well or 2) aren't as capable at taking tests.

The GRE is wayyyy easier than the LSAT (I say that as someone who has >95th percentile scores on both).

I like the LSAT because I can point to a score as an objective reference to my 'ability' (whatever the hell that means) and easily compare myself to others. Since I do well on it, that comparison strokes my ego and makes me feel smarter/superior to lots of others.
The GRE comparison feels far less significant because I know that test to be much easier - so even though a 99th percentile score *should* mean the same thing in a relativistic sense (I'm 'better' than 99% of the other people taking the test), it doesn't feel the same.

Yes, that makes me sound like an absolute asshole, and yes, I think it's an oversimplification of why I like the LSAT being used as a gatekeeper, but I think the reality is that all high-achieving LSAT supporters hold at least a little of this opinion.

[chicagoburger]

I also want to add:

The American Bar Association, which governs most U.S. law schools, announced in 2014 a rule that allows law schools to relax their policy on the LSAT.

Up to 10 percent of a school's entering class can be admitted without taking the LSAT, but the applicants must matriculate from the university's undergraduate college, or​ pursue another degree in addition to their J.D.

The applicants must also be at the top of their class. According to the ABA, "Applicants admitted must have scored at the 85th percentile nationally, or above, on a standardized college or graduate admissions test, specifically the ACT, SAT, GRE, or GMAT; and must have ranked in the top 10% of their undergraduate class through six semesters of academic work, or achieved a cumulative GPA of 3.5 or above through six semesters of academic work." ​​

It looks like you have to have 3.5 and 85th percentile + to be considered. The cap is set at 10% of entering class.