Chicago law schools consider accepting GRE Forum

[stego]

I tend to think extreme high scorers on the GRE and LSAT will be mostly the same people. Obviously some discrepancies due to test-day flukiness and the simple fact that they're different tests. Can't imagine the number of people who will ace the GRE but do relatively poorly on the LSAT is huge though.

[sanzgo]

instead of focusing on the subset of people who took the GRE for other purposes and are now facing the possibility of applying to LS, i'd instead focus on the people who were going to apply to law school anyway. the discussion above seems a bit pointless. let's focus on what really matters here.

look, the fact of the matter is, if law schools start accepting the GRE, then undergrads that went to a school w/out grade inflation and also majored in a major w/out grade inflation are fucked. the GRE is so fucking easy the only thing to differentiate applicants will be gpa (assuming they keeping going with the numbers-game route). even if the GRE is curved, b/c it's such an easy test, different score ranges at the high-end mean little. it's just splitting hairs at that point. sure you could say the same thing about the lsat but it's to a lesser extent than the GRE b/c it's much more rigorous.

if you were lucky enough to attend an expensive private lac or ivy, congrats! the avg grade at harvard is literally a A. you'd have to be dumb to get below a 3.7 there. if you majored in engineering/natural sciences/math in a public school, most likely your classes were curved at a 2.7 mean. even for non-technical majors, it's usually curved at a 3.0 or 3.3. a berkeley 3.0 in EECS is way more impressive than a harvard 4.0 in history. but law schools don't give a shit and i bet many of you wouldn't know either since most law students tend to be bs liberal arts majors who have never experienced the rigors of a upper-division level technical class.

with the introduction of the gre then, if the emphasis on numbers continues, the playing field will tilt towards those undergrads that went to schools with grade-inflation, those that majored in bull-shit majors, and/or those that played the college game of taking classes only with easy profs.

if law schools start to turn away from a numbers-based approach and make admissions more holistic, that's not necessary a better thing either. people who grew up from upper-class families will almost always tend to have better softs that those who didn't. i don't have time to go into the nitty-gritty but there's a wealth of research done on this. call me cynical but history has shown american schools tend to engage in dirty practices behind the protective mask that is "holistic admissions." that's why they even changed admissions from obj to holistic in the first place. they did it with the jews, they're doing it with the asians today. they'll claim "diversity." oh really, eh? how does boosting the admissions chances of legacy kids help diversity? the last time i checked, they don't give a boost to poor applicants unless they are AA, NA, etc. and what's funny is a rich black kid who grew up in beverly hills will get a huge admissions buff simply by being black whereas the poor laos kid from flint michigan won't. and how do these schools get away with this kind of shit? all behind the facade of "holistic admissions." there needs to be at least SOME level of objectivity to LS admissions and with the way american universities are, GPA alone does not allow for that. shit it's so easy to game your GPA now there's no meaning to numerical GPA anymore. major + college matter way more. oh, well except when it comes to ls admissions apparently.

instead of bickering about ls admissions becoming more competitive, we should be thinking about whether this gre change benefits a certain group at the expense of another. and it does and it will. the lsat's greatest advantage imo was that it gave a chance for people with unfortunate circumstances to redeem themselves. even if they majored in electrical engineering at UIUC and "only" have a 3.2 gpa after 4 years of studying 8-10 hours everyday, they still have a shot at the t-14 if they can prove themselves. with the gre, they won't be able to prove shit and aspiring ls applicants will start to shift EVEN MORE towards easy majors/colleges to cop that 4.0. the lsat also acted as the sole component in an application that you could use to objectively compare different applicants. no, the gre doesn't really allow for that given how easy it is.

this doesn't affect me but i still care about this issue b/c i don't want future law schools to end up with even more numbers of downright insufferable, useless liberal arts majors who just gpa-gamed their way into law school. b/c trust me, once the gre becomes widely accepted, that's the thought that's gonna be going through every prospective applicant's mind.

[grades??]

if you were lucky enough to attend an expensive private lac or ivy, congrats! the avg grade at harvard is literally a A.

The only point I will make to this is most elite LACs actively grade deflate, not inflate. Most elite LACs are MUCH HARDER to do well at than Ivys.

[chicagoburger]

this doesn't affect me but i still care about this issue b/c i don't want future law schools to end up with even more numbers of downright insufferable, useless liberal arts majors who just gpa-gamed their way into law school. b/c trust me, once the gre becomes widely accepted, that's the thought that's gonna be going through every prospective applicant's mind.

On the contrary, I believe law schools have been held hostage by the US NEWS ranking for too long that they have become a number game now. The less LSAT/GPA matters, the more likely we can reach diversity.

If you worry about Asian kids being discriminated at the admission process, please don't. They are as rare as any other non-white students in law school. Many law schools give them URM status in fact.

Also, I don't see the point of comparing the gpa of hard science major students who want to be engineers/scientists to those who took liberal arts major to prep for law schools.

[ImGonnaTakeGRE]

Business schools accept GRE scores and have seen increase in diversity for their entering classes. Not just with regards to gender, ethnicity, etc. but also in attracting people with diverse profiles. Why wouldn't law schools also want this?

It's becoming abundantly clear that the people opposed to this policy are people who were rejected by HLS but believe they would have gotten accepted if they were allowed to take GRE.

[lawlzschool]

this doesn't affect me but i still care about this issue b/c i don't want future law schools to end up with even more numbers of downright insufferable, useless liberal arts majors who just gpa-gamed their way into law school. b/c trust me, once the gre becomes widely accepted, that's the thought that's gonna be going through every prospective applicant's mind.

On the contrary, I believe law schools have been held hostage by the US NEWS ranking for too long that they have become a number game now. The less LSAT/GPA matters, the more likely we can reach diversity.

If you worry about Asian kids being discriminated at the admission process, please don't. They are as rare as any other non-white students in law school. Many law schools give them URM status in fact.

Also, I don't see the point of comparing the gpa of hard science major students who want to be engineers/scientists to those who took liberal arts major to prep for law schools.

The bolded is absolutely not true, don't mislead people.

American Indians/Alaskan Natives, African Americans/Blacks, Mexican Americans, and Puerto Ricans are URM. If you're Asian and mixed with one of these groups then yes, you'd be URM, but Asian itself is NOT a URM (see Grutter v. Bollinger for further details)

[cavalier1138]

If you worry about Asian kids being discriminated at the admission process, please don't. They are as rare as any other non-white students in law school. Many law schools give them URM status in fact.

1. No one mentioned Asian applicants.

2. Stop.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Scooped, but: Chicagoburger, there is no evidence that law schools give law students a URM boost in admissions. Sure, they count them for diversity statistics, but that's not the same thing. You really need to start citing your sources or stop running your mouth off about things you don't know about.

I'm not going to go into the whole liberal arts v. STEM thing except to say that I disagree generally with the false dichotomy set up between them. I also don't think the situation is so dire in that I don't think GPA will be the only distinguishing factor, nor do I think the "ease" of the GRE means there will be no way to distinguish between the highest scores - the bands will just be narrower. Also, holistic review would allow schools to weight the precious STEM degrees more heavily. Sure, there is absolutely potential for abuse, but there's also potential for opportunity.

Further discussion of the "rich black kid unfairly getting an advantage" should be avoided, though, as too close to discussing the merits of AA, which isn't allowed here.

[poi543]

this doesn't affect me but i still care about this issue b/c i don't want future law schools to end up with even more numbers of downright insufferable, useless liberal arts majors who just gpa-gamed their way into law school. b/c trust me, once the gre becomes widely accepted, that's the thought that's gonna be going through every prospective applicant's mind.

On the contrary, I believe law schools have been held hostage by the US NEWS ranking for too long that they have become a number game now. The less LSAT/GPA matters, the more likely we can reach diversity.

If you worry about Asian kids being discriminated at the admission process, please don't. They are as rare as any other non-white students in law school. Many law schools give them URM status in fact.

Also, I don't see the point of comparing the gpa of hard science major students who want to be engineers/scientists to those who took liberal arts major to prep for law schools.

The bolded is absolutely not true, don't mislead people.

American Indians/Alaskan Natives, African Americans/Blacks, Mexican Americans, and Puerto Ricans are URM. If you're Asian and mixed with one of these groups then yes, you'd be URM, but Asian itself is NOT a URM (see Grutter v. Bollinger for further details)

I'm sorry but this is not correct. Although it may not be completely widespread, I know for a fact that Asian Americans are considered URM in at least one top chicago law school, at least in their official statistics that they report on URMs. Look into it.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Asian Americans are absolutely considered a separate demographic category when a school is talking about the makeup of its class. They count for measuring diversity. That does not mean that they get a bump in admissions.

[poi543]

Asian Americans are absolutely considered a separate demographic category when a school is talking about the makeup of its class. They count for measuring diversity. That does not mean that they get a bump in admissions.

I would second this. Just becuase they are counted in the URM category does not mean they actually get a boost (I am an URM myself, and have very strong feelings against ppl that whine about affirmative action being an unfair advantage. I very strongly doubt that affirmative action is even a thing, especially in the way that people typically think of it). Nonetheless, for law schools, Asian americans are counted in the URM stats at least at one top school, I know this for a fact.

[cavalier1138]

Asian Americans are absolutely considered a separate demographic category when a school is talking about the makeup of its class. They count for measuring diversity. That does not mean that they get a bump in admissions.

I would second this. Just becuase they are counted in the URM category does not mean they actually get a boost (I am an URM myself, and have very strong feelings against ppl that whine about affirmative action being an unfair advantage. I very strongly doubt that affirmative action is even a thing, especially in the way that people typically think of it). Nonetheless, for law schools, Asian americans are counted in the URM stats at least at one top school, I know this for a fact.

Right, but you're ignoring what Nony is saying. No one is claiming that Asian students aren't counted as "URMs" for diversity purposes. But when talking about admissions, there are specific minority groups that receive a URM boost in admissions decisions. Asian Americans do not get that boost.

[poi543]

Asian Americans are absolutely considered a separate demographic category when a school is talking about the makeup of its class. They count for measuring diversity. That does not mean that they get a bump in admissions.

I would second this. Just becuase they are counted in the URM category does not mean they actually get a boost (I am an URM myself, and have very strong feelings against ppl that whine about affirmative action being an unfair advantage. I very strongly doubt that affirmative action is even a thing, especially in the way that people typically think of it). Nonetheless, for law schools, Asian americans are counted in the URM stats at least at one top school, I know this for a fact.

Right, but you're ignoring what Nony is saying. No one is claiming that Asian students aren't counted as "URMs" for diversity purposes. But when talking about admissions, there are specific minority groups that receive a URM boost in admissions decisions. Asian Americans do not get that boost.

I was agreeing with what Nony was saying--
Regarding the boost, I think thats an empirical question. which there may not be enough data to answer. I'm sure they do not get as much of a boost as "traditional" URMs in the schools that consider them as such, but again this is all speculation. I don't think traditional URMs get much of a boost in the first place, especially at elite places, but that's a more controversial opinion. What it ends up looking like is, the most competitive URMs get in everywhere, and maybe get in to more places than non-URMs because they're URM, but they wouldn't have gotten in had they not had the exact same credentials as their non-URM peers that got in. Their stats are the same. They are just as competitive. Schools are looking out for themselves theyre not gonna sacrifice their stats. So the existence of the boost itself in general is questionable and definitely not to be relied upon as an URM, it's not a "crutch", especially in todays climate

But in regards to asian americans in law, i imagine that all application components being equal, they *may be* favored over non-URM--in the schools that value diverse representation and watch out for that type of thing. Of which im not sure how many there are

[lymenheimer]

Asian Americans are absolutely considered a separate demographic category when a school is talking about the makeup of its class. They count for measuring diversity. That does not mean that they get a bump in admissions.

I would second this. Just becuase they are counted in the URM category does not mean they actually get a boost (I am an URM myself, and have very strong feelings against ppl that whine about affirmative action being an unfair advantage. I very strongly doubt that affirmative action is even a thing, especially in the way that people typically think of it). Nonetheless, for law schools, Asian americans are counted in the URM stats at least at one top school, I know this for a fact.

Right, but you're ignoring what Nony is saying. No one is claiming that Asian students aren't counted as "URMs" for diversity purposes. But when talking about admissions, there are specific minority groups that receive a URM boost in admissions decisions. Asian Americans do not get that boost.

I was agreeing with what Nony was saying--
Regarding the boost, I think thats an empirical question. which there may not be enough data to answer. I'm sure they do not get as much of a boost as "traditional" URMs in the schools that consider them as such, but again this is all speculation. I don't think traditional URMs get much of a boost in the first place, especially at elite places, but that's a more controversial opinion. What it ends up looking like is, the most competitive URMs get in everywhere, and maybe get in to more places than non-URMs because they're URM, but they wouldn't have gotten in had they not had the exact same credentials as their non-URM peers that got in. Their stats are the same. They are just as competitive. Schools are looking out for themselves theyre not gonna sacrifice their stats. So the existence of the boost itself in general is questionable and definitely not to be relied upon as an URM, it's not a "crutch", especially in todays climate

But in regards to asian americans in law, i imagine that all application components being equal, they *may be* favored over non-URM--in the schools that value diverse representation and watch out for that type of thing. Of which im not sure how many there are

You're an idiot.

[UVA2B]

Asian Americans are absolutely considered a separate demographic category when a school is talking about the makeup of its class. They count for measuring diversity. That does not mean that they get a bump in admissions.

I would second this. Just becuase they are counted in the URM category does not mean they actually get a boost (I am an URM myself, and have very strong feelings against ppl that whine about affirmative action being an unfair advantage. I very strongly doubt that affirmative action is even a thing, especially in the way that people typically think of it). Nonetheless, for law schools, Asian americans are counted in the URM stats at least at one top school, I know this for a fact.

Right, but you're ignoring what Nony is saying. No one is claiming that Asian students aren't counted as "URMs" for diversity purposes. But when talking about admissions, there are specific minority groups that receive a URM boost in admissions decisions. Asian Americans do not get that boost.

I was agreeing with what Nony was saying--
Regarding the boost, I think thats an empirical question. which there may not be enough data to answer. I'm sure they do not get as much of a boost as "traditional" URMs in the schools that consider them as such, but again this is all speculation. I don't think traditional URMs get much of a boost in the first place, especially at elite places, but that's a more controversial opinion. What it ends up looking like is, the most competitive URMs get in everywhere, and maybe get in to more places than non-URMs because they're URM, but they wouldn't have gotten in had they not had the exact same credentials as their non-URM peers that got in. Their stats are the same. They are just as competitive. Schools are looking out for themselves theyre not gonna sacrifice their stats. So the existence of the boost itself in general is questionable and definitely not to be relied upon as an URM, it's not a "crutch", especially in todays climate

But in regards to asian americans in law, i imagine that all application components being equal, they *may be* favored over non-URM--in the schools that value diverse representation and watch out for that type of thing. Of which im not sure how many there are

Yeah, you're arguing about demographic collection of data, everyone else is speaking to the minorities that are considered as soft factors due to being underrepresented in the profession of law. Grutter v. Bollinger even explicitly mentions Hispanics, Native Americans, and African Americans on several occasions.

Law schools more generally can consider someone's race to give them a "plus" factor in admissions, so if a law school thought they needed more Asian Americans in their classes, they might treat Asian Americans with a "plus" factor. But Asian American is not traditionally underrepresented in the legal profession like some of those other races, so they're less likely to receive a similar "plus" in the holistic review of their application.

Regardless, this is bordering way too close on discussing the merits of it for my comfort, so I'm done.

[poi543]

Asian Americans are absolutely considered a separate demographic category when a school is talking about the makeup of its class. They count for measuring diversity. That does not mean that they get a bump in admissions.

I would second this. Just becuase they are counted in the URM category does not mean they actually get a boost (I am an URM myself, and have very strong feelings against ppl that whine about affirmative action being an unfair advantage. I very strongly doubt that affirmative action is even a thing, especially in the way that people typically think of it). Nonetheless, for law schools, Asian americans are counted in the URM stats at least at one top school, I know this for a fact.

Right, but you're ignoring what Nony is saying. No one is claiming that Asian students aren't counted as "URMs" for diversity purposes. But when talking about admissions, there are specific minority groups that receive a URM boost in admissions decisions. Asian Americans do not get that boost.

I was agreeing with what Nony was saying--
Regarding the boost, I think thats an empirical question. which there may not be enough data to answer. I'm sure they do not get as much of a boost as "traditional" URMs in the schools that consider them as such, but again this is all speculation. I don't think traditional URMs get much of a boost in the first place, especially at elite places, but that's a more controversial opinion. What it ends up looking like is, the most competitive URMs get in everywhere, and maybe get in to more places than non-URMs because they're URM, but they wouldn't have gotten in had they not had the exact same credentials as their non-URM peers that got in. Their stats are the same. They are just as competitive. Schools are looking out for themselves theyre not gonna sacrifice their stats. So the existence of the boost itself in general is questionable and definitely not to be relied upon as an URM, it's not a "crutch", especially in todays climate

But in regards to asian americans in law, i imagine that all application components being equal, they *may be* favored over non-URM--in the schools that value diverse representation and watch out for that type of thing. Of which im not sure how many there are

You're an idiot.

thats not nice lol. just what ive observed, may be wrong, sorry if anyone was offended

[TheWalrus]

Asians are considered URM's in law? (Just from a numbers prospective).

[A. Nony Mouse]

I was agreeing with what Nony was saying--
Regarding the boost, I think thats an empirical question. which there may not be enough data to answer. I'm sure they do not get as much of a boost as "traditional" URMs in the schools that consider them as such, but again this is all speculation. I don't think traditional URMs get much of a boost in the first place, especially at elite places, but that's a more controversial opinion. What it ends up looking like is, the most competitive URMs get in everywhere, and maybe get in to more places than non-URMs because they're URM, but they wouldn't have gotten in had they not had the exact same credentials as their non-URM peers that got in. Their stats are the same. They are just as competitive. Schools are looking out for themselves theyre not gonna sacrifice their stats. So the existence of the boost itself in general is questionable and definitely not to be relied upon as an URM, it's not a "crutch", especially in todays climate

But in regards to asian americans in law, i imagine that all application components being equal, they *may be* favored over non-URM--in the schools that value diverse representation and watch out for that type of thing. Of which im not sure how many there are

If you look at statistics on mylsn, actually, there is quite a lot of data showing that URMs often get into top schools with lower GPAs and LSATs than their non-URM classmates. (This isn't a comment on ability or accomplishment, just the admissions numbers.) That is the boost people are referring to, as something pretty demonstrable.

[tuna_wasabi]

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.

From https://www.usnews.com/education/best-g ... quirements

Is this requirement still on? I couldn't find any pieces on this on the ABA website.