Chicago law schools consider accepting GRE Forum

[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.

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

[cavalier1138]

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).

I'm not concerned with breaking LSAC's monopoly. I'm concerned with adding applicants to an already overlarge pool. It's not like the GRE is administered by a bunch of angels who fly the exam fees straight over to the nearest homeless shelter. Someone profits, regardless of how things shake out. I just can't understand the logic behind the "accessibility" argument, since we're not dealing with a shortage of lawyers.

[A. Nony Mouse]

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.

I think this is a HUGE part of what's going on, frankly.

I also think the people here are kind of not representative of the general population in their approach to tests, and that it won't actually have as significant an effect as people fear - I think mostly people in the world decide they want to go to law school and take whatever test is necessary to do that. If that's the LSAT they'll take the LSAT. If that's the GRE they'll take the GRE. I don't think it's going to materially alter the general universe of applicants - just maybe some small percentage of the gunners/gamers here. (Which goes to the "increasing the pool" argument. I really don't think it's going to create a deluge of applicants because people can already go to law school with the crappiest of LSAT scores.) GRE wants to take part of LSAC's existing share, not add applicants to the total pool.

[cavalier1138]

I think this is a HUGE part of what's going on, frankly.

I also think the people here are kind of not representative of the general population in their approach to tests, and that it won't actually have as significant an effect as people fear - I think mostly people in the world decide they want to go to law school and take whatever test is necessary to do that. If that's the LSAT they'll take the LSAT. If that's the GRE they'll take the GRE. I don't think it's going to materially alter the general universe of applicants - just maybe some small percentage of the gunners/gamers here. (Which goes to the "increasing the pool" argument. I really don't think it's going to create a deluge of applicants because people can already go to law school with the crappiest of LSAT scores.) GRE wants to take part of LSAC's existing share, not add applicants to the total pool.

Then what's the point? If it's not adding applicants to the pool, then it's not actually increasing accessibility. It's just arbitrarily changing the criteria.

[Npret]

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.

I had a high LSAT if that is at all relevant. No one has asked me about my score since I went to law school. It's really only relevant for admissions.
Maybe the difference is just where you are in your career? Who knows I might have cared when I was an 0L with a shiny score.

[chicagoburger]

Then what's the point? If it's not adding applicants to the pool, then it's not actually increasing accessibility. It's just arbitrarily changing the criteria.

ABA rule requires such non-LSAT admits to have 3.5+ or top 10% of their undergrad class. And that such admits are capped at 10% of entering class.
Such rule change was introduced in 2014 so that it has been there all the time. Shitty schools don't really have motivation to use it because their gpa median is way below 3.5. Top schools will be able use this rule to their advantage.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I think this is a HUGE part of what's going on, frankly.

I also think the people here are kind of not representative of the general population in their approach to tests, and that it won't actually have as significant an effect as people fear - I think mostly people in the world decide they want to go to law school and take whatever test is necessary to do that. If that's the LSAT they'll take the LSAT. If that's the GRE they'll take the GRE. I don't think it's going to materially alter the general universe of applicants - just maybe some small percentage of the gunners/gamers here. (Which goes to the "increasing the pool" argument. I really don't think it's going to create a deluge of applicants because people can already go to law school with the crappiest of LSAT scores.) GRE wants to take part of LSAC's existing share, not add applicants to the total pool.

Then what's the point? If it's not adding applicants to the pool, then it's not actually increasing accessibility. It's just arbitrarily changing the criteria.

Eh, not necessarily arbitrarily, if the studies show what they're purported to show.

[Npret]

Then what's the point? If it's not adding applicants to the pool, then it's not actually increasing accessibility. It's just arbitrarily changing the criteria.

ABA rule requires such non-LSAT admits to have 3.5+ or top 10% of their undergrad class. And that such admits are capped at 10% of entering class.
Such rule change was introduced in 2014 so that it has been there all the time. Shitty schools don't really have motivation to use it because their gpa median is way below 3.5. Top schools will be able use this rule to their advantage.

Is that the rule that is changing?

[cavalier1138]

Then what's the point? If it's not adding applicants to the pool, then it's not actually increasing accessibility. It's just arbitrarily changing the criteria.

ABA rule requires such non-LSAT admits to have 3.5+ or top 10% of their undergrad class. And that such admits are capped at 10% of entering class.
Such rule change was introduced in 2014 so that it has been there all the time. Shitty schools don't really have motivation to use it because their gpa median is way below 3.5. Top schools will be able use this rule to their advantage.

That's not the applicable ABA rule, nor does that really respond in any way to my post.

[2LRising]

Crazy that anyone would think this won't change anything. Is there a reason to think it won't? People WILL throw an application to top schools if they happen to score well on the GRE. What's the downside of throwing an app in and potentially gaining admission to Harvard Law when you do well on the GRE? Application fees? In reality, there is none. People already toy around with the idea of going to law school. Many are dissuaded by, among other things, the LSAT (which is eons more precise in terms of logic than other tests).

The only barrier (a it's a temporary one) is that people don't know law schools will accept the GRE, and so they don't apply. Once word gets out (give it some years), there will certainly be a great many applications flowing to law schools. This will probably push some somewhat high LSAT scorers out but only to the extent that those taking the LSAT overlap with those taking the GRE. I don't think the overlap is enough to not alter application pools and acceptance rates, etc., though, so yeah, this'll probably change things around in terms of law school admissions.

[jjcorvino]

Crazy that anyone would think this won't change anything. Is there a reason to think it won't? People WILL throw an application to top schools if they happen to score well on the GRE. What's the downside of throwing an app in and potentially gaining admission to Harvard Law when you do well on the GRE? Application fees? In reality, there is none. People already toy around with the idea of going to law school. Many are dissuaded by, among other things, the LSAT (which is eons more precise in terms of logic than other tests).

The only barrier (a it's a temporary one) is that people don't know law schools will accept the GRE, and so they don't apply. Once word gets out (give it some years), there will certainly be a great many applications flowing to law schools. This will probably push some somewhat high LSAT scorers out but only to the extent that those taking the LSAT overlap with those taking the GRE. I don't think the overlap is enough to not alter application pools and acceptance rates, etc., though, so yeah, this'll probably change things around in terms of law school admissions.

This is the main reason that I do not want the LSAT to go away. I think it is a bad idea to expand the field of people from those who are sure they want to go to law school, to people who are deciding between MPA, MPP, other graduate degrees and law school. Law school is such a big decision, people should be sure they actually want to practice law.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Yeah, I just don't agree with that. It's based on a lot of assumptions. Who "just happens" to get a top score on the GRE? You only take the GRE if you want to go to non-law grad school. You won't know if you have a high GRE until you actually take it, which means you had other grad school plans. If you decide to take it because it can help get you into law school, you're looking at law school and would presumably just take the LSAT if the GRE weren't an option.

Like I do not buy that there is some universe of highly qualified applicants (because you all seem worried about people getting into Harvard) who *would* have applied to law school, but the LSAT is just too damn hard, but then the GRE is so easy they'll go for it. I don't think people plan their futures this way.

(Plus these people will have to be otherwise qualified for Harvard. How many such people do you think would have tanked the LSAT and would accordingly NEVER have made it into Harvard but for the easiness of the LSAT?)

[A. Nony Mouse]

But plenty of people take the LSAT and go to law school without really understanding whether they want to practice law. The LSAT doesn't demonstrate anything about true interest in practicing law school. The GRE may not make that better but it's not making it worse.

[Sprout]

But plenty of people take the LSAT and go to law school without really understanding whether they want to practice law. The LSAT doesn't demonstrate anything about true interest in practicing law school. The GRE may not make that better but it's not making it worse.

So much this.

I really don't get the argument here. Maybe my brain is fried from bar prep but honestly confused.

[2LRising]

To clarify, I'm talking about the state of affairs as they stand now.

Why do you think only people who score at the top will apply to law schools? In a hypothetical world (maybe even a real world soon) where all schools accept the GRE AND people know you can apply to law schools with it, it literally means there are more applicants from the same seats, this doesn't even out.

If I have 10 people with 170, 4.0 applicants and there are 10 seats, cool. If 170 = 900 on the GRE, and we add another 10 people, 10 people get the axe even though they wouldn't have gotten it without the GRE.

I KNOW, if they wanted to go to law school, they would've gone. The barrier wasn't that the LSAT is hard, but that the LSAT was there to begin with. People do consider law school, but other areas, b-school for example, might be more of an attractive option to them, but it probably still wasn't off the table. Making a decision between Harvard Law and MIT Sloan is a real decision people would want to make if all they had to do in addition to applying to business school is throw their impressive resume and GRE score to Harvard.

I'm not saying they're less qualified, but at every level of score band for the LSAT, there are X more people vying for that seat. GREAT for school's. Amazing, actually. Not at all good for students looking to get into top schools (and any school at all, if all schools follow).

[A. Nony Mouse]

I have to admit I don't get the above at all, in part because you have to take the GMAT to go to business school so I don't know what that has to do with anything here?

(Edited to include correct test.)

[guynourmin]

the LSAT is not supposed to be a barrier to entrance. IF you maintain that the lsat is a barrier, then that is actually a strong argument in support of allowing the GRE in my view.

[UVA2B]

To clarify, I'm talking about the state of affairs as they stand now.

Why do you think only people who score at the top will apply to law schools? In a hypothetical world (maybe even a real world soon) where all schools accept the GRE AND people know you can apply to law schools with it, it literally means there are more applicants from the same seats, this doesn't even out.

If I have 10 people with 170, 4.0 applicants and there are 10 seats, cool. If 170 = 900 on the GRE, and we add another 10 people, 10 people get the axe even though they wouldn't have gotten it without the GRE.

I KNOW, if they wanted to go to law school, they would've gone. The barrier wasn't that the LSAT is hard, but that the LSAT was there to begin with. People do consider law school, but other areas, b-school for example, might be more of an attractive option to them, but it probably still wasn't off the table. Making a decision between Harvard Law and MIT Sloan is a real decision people would want to make if all they had to do in addition to applying to business school is throw their impressive resume and GRE score to Harvard.

I'm not saying they're less qualified, but at every level of score band for the LSAT, there are X more people vying for that seat. GREAT for school's. Amazing, actually. Not at all good for students looking to get into top schools (and any school at all, if all schools follow).

Will applications to schools likely increase if all schools start accepting the GRE in addition to the LSAT? Yeah, probably.

But I seriously doubt there is a sizable portion of the population that sees the LSAT as any sort of barrier to what they want to do, and I doubt there are that many people sitting around with a GRE score that will suddenly consider law school simply because the LSAT is no longer in the way.

It's fine that you want the additional barrier to entry to still remain, but to say there will be a glut of new candidates that will dilute the applicant field so distressingly as to bring yield down considerably across the board is probably a bit hyperbolic. We'll obviously have to wait and see, but let's at least wait until more schools start accepting the GRE (likely, but it hasn't happened yet), and see what sort of application numbers result before we bemoan how much tougher this is going to make law school admissions for those who really want to go to law school because of the infusion of other grad program seekers who are taking the GRE.

[2LRising]

I have to admit I don't get the above at all, in part because you have to take the GMAT to go to business school so I don't know what that has to do with anything here?

(Edited to include correct test.)

Whoops. My bad.

The point doesn't change at all.

To put it simply: Not everyone who takes the GRE is looking to go to law school. Now that schools accept the GRE, more people will apply when, at each score band, increasing competition between applicants.

If, say, med school's started accepting the LSAT, many more people will apply who probably wouldn't have applied had the LSAT not been accepted. Same would go for any other school, too.

[2LRising]

To clarify, I'm talking about the state of affairs as they stand now.

Why do you think only people who score at the top will apply to law schools? In a hypothetical world (maybe even a real world soon) where all schools accept the GRE AND people know you can apply to law schools with it, it literally means there are more applicants from the same seats, this doesn't even out.

If I have 10 people with 170, 4.0 applicants and there are 10 seats, cool. If 170 = 900 on the GRE, and we add another 10 people, 10 people get the axe even though they wouldn't have gotten it without the GRE.

I KNOW, if they wanted to go to law school, they would've gone. The barrier wasn't that the LSAT is hard, but that the LSAT was there to begin with. People do consider law school, but other areas, b-school for example, might be more of an attractive option to them, but it probably still wasn't off the table. Making a decision between Harvard Law and MIT Sloan is a real decision people would want to make if all they had to do in addition to applying to business school is throw their impressive resume and GRE score to Harvard.

I'm not saying they're less qualified, but at every level of score band for the LSAT, there are X more people vying for that seat. GREAT for school's. Amazing, actually. Not at all good for students looking to get into top schools (and any school at all, if all schools follow).

Will applications to schools likely increase if all schools start accepting the GRE in addition to the LSAT? Yeah, probably.

But I seriously doubt there is a sizable portion of the population that sees the LSAT as any sort of barrier to what they want to do, and I doubt there are that many people sitting around with a GRE score that will suddenly consider law school simply because the LSAT is no longer in the way.

It's fine that you want the additional barrier to entry to still remain, but to say there will be a glut of new candidates that will dilute the applicant field so distressingly as to bring yield down considerably across the board is probably a bit hyperbolic. We'll obviously have to wait and see, but let's at least wait until more schools start accepting the GRE (likely, but it hasn't happened yet), and see what sort of application numbers result before we bemoan how much tougher this is going to make law school admissions for those who really want to go to law school because of the infusion of other grad program seekers who are taking the GRE.

For the record, I actually don't care. I'm in law school already and this doesn't actually affect me in the slightest bit. I mean, if I were being really cynical and cared about it, then I'd like it since it would mean that my school will probably be more selective in the future. This more just a mental exercise and just my prediction.

[guynourmin]

Now that schools accept the GRE, more people will apply when, at each score band, increasing competition between applicants.

Why do you view this as a potentially bad outcome?

[2LRising]

Now that schools accept the GRE, more people will apply when, at each score band, increasing competition between applicants.

Why do you view this as a potentially bad outcome?

Lmao I don't!!!!!

I'm literally just saying what I think will happen.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I think the other issue is what USNWR does. (If that's come up already my apologies, I don't know how they're handling this.) One of the major reasons why schools care about LSAT is because it factors into the rankings so heavily. I suspect that adding a new test is going to kind of dilute the importance of test scores overall in the rankings (this is just a gut feeling that if you start adding more options for this it's less standardized/comparable and harder to use as a major ranking factor) and if so, schools may select for different qualities. (There are pros and cons to that. Also I could be totally wrong about the effect on the rankings, but I still think that will influence what happens with applications.)

[Veil of Ignorance]

Yeah, I just don't agree with that. It's based on a lot of assumptions. Who "just happens" to get a top score on the GRE? You only take the GRE if you want to go to non-law grad school. You won't know if you have a high GRE until you actually take it, which means you had other grad school plans. If you decide to take it because it can help get you into law school, you're looking at law school and would presumably just take the LSAT if the GRE weren't an option.

Like I do not buy that there is some universe of highly qualified applicants (because you all seem worried about people getting into Harvard) who *would* have applied to law school, but the LSAT is just too damn hard, but then the GRE is so easy they'll go for it. I don't think people plan their futures this way.

(Plus these people will have to be otherwise qualified for Harvard. How many such people do you think would have tanked the LSAT and would accordingly NEVER have made it into Harvard but for the easiness of the LSAT?)

I mean anyone from like Duke undergrad who got a 3.8 GPA is "qualified" enough for Harvard, the way admissions now works, given a high enough (173+) LSAT. Imagine this person couldn't break a 170 LSAT, but then tries and gets a 99% GRE score. Suddenly they are competitive for Harvard. I disagree about the extent to which people plan their futures. I know lots of people who went on to Ph.D. programs because some professor encouraged them to, or went to law school because they nailed the LSAT.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Yeah, I just don't agree with that. It's based on a lot of assumptions. Who "just happens" to get a top score on the GRE? You only take the GRE if you want to go to non-law grad school. You won't know if you have a high GRE until you actually take it, which means you had other grad school plans. If you decide to take it because it can help get you into law school, you're looking at law school and would presumably just take the LSAT if the GRE weren't an option.

Like I do not buy that there is some universe of highly qualified applicants (because you all seem worried about people getting into Harvard) who *would* have applied to law school, but the LSAT is just too damn hard, but then the GRE is so easy they'll go for it. I don't think people plan their futures this way.

(Plus these people will have to be otherwise qualified for Harvard. How many such people do you think would have tanked the LSAT and would accordingly NEVER have made it into Harvard but for the easiness of the LSAT?)

I mean anyone from like Duke undergrad who got a 3.8 GPA is "qualified" enough for Harvard, the way admissions now works, given a high enough (173+) LSAT. Imagine this person couldn't break a 170 LSAT, but then tries and gets a 99% GRE score. Suddenly they are competitive for Harvard. I disagree about the extent to which people plan their futures. I know lots of people who went on to Ph.D. programs because some professor encouraged them to, or went to law school because they nailed the LSAT.

Why do you think this is a significant universe of people though? And why do you think the 99% GRE is going to be dispositive of whether they get in, or that a significant number of 99% GRE scorers wouldn't have got high scores if they took the LSAT?

And people who go to law school because they nail the LSAT have to be considering law school already or they wouldn't take the LSAT; PhD admissions are also totally different. Even if a prof encourages someone to go, that person has to have a great track record in the field and a research agenda to get in anywhere. You don't "fall into" a PhD program.