Implication of more schools taking multiple standardized test? Forum

[emmbeegee]

Color me skeptical that a large pool of 90th percenters LSATwise are going to suddenly be 99th percenter GREwise. Yeah, it's an easier test on the whole, but I just have trouble believing that individuals are going to drive to that 99th percentile on the GRE without having done it on the LSAT.

Eh, I know I am only one anecdote, but for what it's worth... I am definitely in that boat. I scored in the 99th percentile on the GRE, with zero preparation. And I mean that literally -- I hadn't touched a single prep test, study guide, or any other relevant material. All it took was a strong vocabulary, a good grasp on grammar, and recognition of high school math. I took the LSAT after a few months of moderate studying and scored in the 93rd percentile. The GRE is simply a much easier test for anyone who doesn't have a serious problem with math or reading. It doesn't require any special skills (like LG) or the sort of mental gymnastics that the LSAT LR and RC look for.

[Npret]

Color me skeptical that a large pool of 90th percenters LSATwise are going to suddenly be 99th percenter GREwise. Yeah, it's an easier test on the whole, but I just have trouble believing that individuals are going to drive to that 99th percentile on the GRE without having done it on the LSAT.

Eh, I know I am only one anecdote, but for what it's worth... I am definitely in that boat. I scored in the 99th percentile on the GRE, with zero preparation. And I mean that literally -- I hadn't touched a single prep test, study guide, or any other relevant material. All it took was a strong vocabulary, a good grasp on grammar, and recognition of high school math. I took the LSAT after a few months of moderate studying and scored in the 93rd percentile. The GRE is simply a much easier test for anyone who doesn't have a serious problem with math or reading. It doesn't require any special skills (like LG) or the sort of mental gymnastics that the LSAT LR and RC look for.

Maybe, but the point is that the LSAT didn't do a better job of predicting law school success in the study. Its never been a great predictor on its own. I feel it's pretty commonly considered that the LSAT favors certain groups over others. As we well know on this site it's possible to raise your score significantly by studying hardcore if you aren't a natural.

We haven't seen the data on the study but I'm certain that Harvard knows how to analyze GRE scores. I think Spivey posted something to that effect.

I understand now that people are clinging to the LSAT because it was a way for them to game their admission chances, but so far it's anecdotal evidence and fear that using the GRE will somehow make schools unable to admit the "best" applicants versus the Harvard pilot study showing that isn't true.

[emmbeegee]

Color me skeptical that a large pool of 90th percenters LSATwise are going to suddenly be 99th percenter GREwise. Yeah, it's an easier test on the whole, but I just have trouble believing that individuals are going to drive to that 99th percentile on the GRE without having done it on the LSAT.

Eh, I know I am only one anecdote, but for what it's worth... I am definitely in that boat. I scored in the 99th percentile on the GRE, with zero preparation. And I mean that literally -- I hadn't touched a single prep test, study guide, or any other relevant material. All it took was a strong vocabulary, a good grasp on grammar, and recognition of high school math. I took the LSAT after a few months of moderate studying and scored in the 93rd percentile. The GRE is simply a much easier test for anyone who doesn't have a serious problem with math or reading. It doesn't require any special skills (like LG) or the sort of mental gymnastics that the LSAT LR and RC look for.

Maybe, but the point is that the LSAT didn't do a better job of predicting law school success in the study. Its never been a great predictor on its own. I feel it's pretty commonly considered that the LSAT favors certain groups over others. As we well know on this site it's possible to raise your score significantly by studying hardcore if you aren't a natural.

We haven't seen the data on the study but I'm certain that Harvard knows how to analyze GRE scores. I think Spivey posted something to that effect.

I understand now that people are clinging to the LSAT because it was a way for them to game their admission chances, but so far it's anecdotal evidence and fear that using the GRE will somehow make schools unable to admit the "best" applicants versus the Harvard pilot study showing that isn't true.

Oh, I have noooooo deeply held delusions about standardized tests being foolproof predictors of anything. My only point was that my results were an example of the 99th percentile/low 90th percentile split that the other poster referred to.

[MediocreAtBest]

I have nothing of real substance to contribute, but the LSAT feels sort of like a rite of passage haha. I might get a little judgmental if I had classmates who only took the GRE.

[Rupert Pupkin]

I have nothing of real substance to contribute, but the LSAT feels sort of like a rite of passage haha. I might get a little judgmental if I had classmates who only took the GRE.

Hahah

[Voyager]

Color me skeptical that a large pool of 90th percenters LSATwise are going to suddenly be 99th percenter GREwise. Yeah, it's an easier test on the whole, but I just have trouble believing that individuals are going to drive to that 99th percentile on the GRE without having done it on the LSAT.

Eh, I know I am only one anecdote, but for what it's worth... I am definitely in that boat. I scored in the 99th percentile on the GRE, with zero preparation. And I mean that literally -- I hadn't touched a single prep test, study guide, or any other relevant material. All it took was a strong vocabulary, a good grasp on grammar, and recognition of high school math. I took the LSAT after a few months of moderate studying and scored in the 93rd percentile. The GRE is simply a much easier test for anyone who doesn't have a serious problem with math or reading. It doesn't require any special skills (like LG) or the sort of mental gymnastics that the LSAT LR and RC look for.

Maybe, but the point is that the LSAT didn't do a better job of predicting law school success in the study. Its never been a great predictor on its own. I feel it's pretty commonly considered that the LSAT favors certain groups over others. As we well know on this site it's possible to raise your score significantly by studying hardcore if you aren't a natural.

We haven't seen the data on the study but I'm certain that Harvard knows how to analyze GRE scores. I think Spivey posted something to that effect.

I understand now that people are clinging to the LSAT because it was a way for them to game their admission chances, but so far it's anecdotal evidence and fear that using the GRE will somehow make schools unable to admit the "best" applicants versus the Harvard pilot study showing that isn't true.

I could game the GRE just as easily. I can game any standardized test.

Frankly, anyone willing to put in the effort to grind out the preparation for these things is already showing an ability to focus and learn that is helpful for success at law school.

This experiment, i reiterate, is meant to increase the number of applicants in an environment where many undergrads are finally understanding just how bad of a bet going to law school is.

[Npret]

Color me skeptical that a large pool of 90th percenters LSATwise are going to suddenly be 99th percenter GREwise. Yeah, it's an easier test on the whole, but I just have trouble believing that individuals are going to drive to that 99th percentile on the GRE without having done it on the LSAT.

Eh, I know I am only one anecdote, but for what it's worth... I am definitely in that boat. I scored in the 99th percentile on the GRE, with zero preparation. And I mean that literally -- I hadn't touched a single prep test, study guide, or any other relevant material. All it took was a strong vocabulary, a good grasp on grammar, and recognition of high school math. I took the LSAT after a few months of moderate studying and scored in the 93rd percentile. The GRE is simply a much easier test for anyone who doesn't have a serious problem with math or reading. It doesn't require any special skills (like LG) or the sort of mental gymnastics that the LSAT LR and RC look for.

Maybe, but the point is that the LSAT didn't do a better job of predicting law school success in the study. Its never been a great predictor on its own. I feel it's pretty commonly considered that the LSAT favors certain groups over others. As we well know on this site it's possible to raise your score significantly by studying hardcore if you aren't a natural.

We haven't seen the data on the study but I'm certain that Harvard knows how to analyze GRE scores. I think Spivey posted something to that effect.

I understand now that people are clinging to the LSAT because it was a way for them to game their admission chances, but so far it's anecdotal evidence and fear that using the GRE will somehow make schools unable to admit the "best" applicants versus the Harvard pilot study showing that isn't true.

I could game the GRE just as easily. I can game any standardized test.

Frankly, anyone willing to put in the effort to grind out the preparation for these things is already showing an ability to focus and learn that is helpful for success at law school.

This experiment, i reiterate, is meant to increase the number of applicants in an environment where many undergrads are finally understanding just how bad of a bet going to law school is.

The thought in the threads here has been that splitters can no longer game admissions because everyone will do well on the GRE. That's why splitters are so emotional about this change. A high LSAT may not be enough to save them from a poor GPA.

I think Harvard wants to admit a different, or slightly different, class from the group they are able to admit under the current testing and reporting regime.

I have no idea about the motivations of other schools.

[Alexandros]

.

[Voyager]

The thought in the threads here has been that splitters can no longer game admissions because everyone will do well on the GRE. That's why splitters are so emotional about this change. A high LSAT may not be enough to save them from a poor GPA.

I think Harvard wants to admit a different, or slightly different, class from the group they are able to admit under the current testing and reporting regime.

I have no idea about the motivations of other schools.

Huh. Well that strikes me as odd as say what you will about the GRE, but there will still be a forced distribution of scores and Harvard can still look for the top scorers.

I'd add that I am 7 years removed from my graduation from law school, so I'd characterize my feelings in this thread as "dispassionate" at best.

That said, I do think that the act of prepping for a special test that is only needed for law school dissuades many people from applying to law school... and I think that is a good thing as most law schools are a horrible scam.

Harvard wants "different people" in that fewer people are taking the LSAT because they heard law school is awful as is being an attorney so by opening up to GRE takers you might get someone who says "eh... I already took the GRE why not drop in an $80 application"

At minimum, it will drive up revenue from application fees. At maximum it may staunch the applicant count bleeding.

rather simple but shrewd strategy, actually.

Too bad it will likely end up luring many an unsuspecting applicant to their doom.

I'll add: I am a believer that standardized tests are more helpful to gauge ability than GPA as GPA varies highly depending on undergrad and major and I reiterate that the ability to focus prep the LSAT well enough to beat out >99% of your competition says quite a bit about your work ethic and starting ability

[dj9i27]

Color me skeptical that a large pool of 90th percenters LSATwise are going to suddenly be 99th percenter GREwise. Yeah, it's an easier test on the whole, but I just have trouble believing that individuals are going to drive to that 99th percentile on the GRE without having done it on the LSAT.

Eh, I know I am only one anecdote, but for what it's worth... I am definitely in that boat. I scored in the 99th percentile on the GRE, with zero preparation. And I mean that literally -- I hadn't touched a single prep test, study guide, or any other relevant material. All it took was a strong vocabulary, a good grasp on grammar, and recognition of high school math. I took the LSAT after a few months of moderate studying and scored in the 93rd percentile. The GRE is simply a much easier test for anyone who doesn't have a serious problem with math or reading. It doesn't require any special skills (like LG) or the sort of mental gymnastics that the LSAT LR and RC look for.

Maybe, but the point is that the LSAT didn't do a better job of predicting law school success in the study. Its never been a great predictor on its own. I feel it's pretty commonly considered that the LSAT favors certain groups over others. As we well know on this site it's possible to raise your score significantly by studying hardcore if you aren't a natural.

We haven't seen the data on the study but I'm certain that Harvard knows how to analyze GRE scores. I think Spivey posted something to that effect.

I understand now that people are clinging to the LSAT because it was a way for them to game their admission chances, but so far it's anecdotal evidence and fear that using the GRE will somehow make schools unable to admit the "best" applicants versus the Harvard pilot study showing that isn't true.

I could game the GRE just as easily. I can game any standardized test.

Frankly, anyone willing to put in the effort to grind out the preparation for these things is already showing an ability to focus and learn that is helpful for success at law school.

This experiment, i reiterate, is meant to increase the number of applicants in an environment where many undergrads are finally understanding just how bad of a bet going to law school is.

The thought in the threads here has been that splitters can no longer game admissions because everyone will do well on the GRE. That's why splitters are so emotional about this change. A high LSAT may not be enough to save them from a poor GPA.

I think Harvard wants to admit a different, or slightly different, class from the group they are able to admit under the current testing and reporting regime.

I have no idea about the motivations of other schools.

Splitters are currently "gaming admissions"?

And taking your jobs. Undergraduate institutions aren't sending their best when they send splitters.

[Alexandros]

.

[Npret]

Splitters game admissions. I thought that was obvious? Isn't that the entire point of the advice to retake and reapply?

[Voyager]

Splitters game admissions. I thought that was obvious? Isn't that the entire point of the advice to retake and reapply?

Actually, I'd say people who majored in Poli Sci are "gaming admissions". Isn't the entire point of the advice to major in something like that to spend 4 years drinking and firing off an essay every now and then for the easy "A"?

[Voyager]

Splitters game admissions. I thought that was obvious? Isn't that the entire point of the advice to retake and reapply?

But the dude who prepped hard for 3 months to beat out 99.5% of the standardized testing population? That dude is someone in whose abilities I trust...

[dj9i27]

Splitters game admissions. I thought that was obvious? Isn't that the entire point of the advice to retake and reapply?

Actually, I'd say people who majored in Poli Sci are "gaming admissions". Isn't the entire point of the advice to major in something like that to spend 4 years drinking and firing off an essay every now and then for the easy "A"?

I really don't want to come off as a "Bleeding Heart Splitter" or whatever but I don't necearily see either an easy major nor a high LSAT to be someone gaming the system but I do see the LSAT as a chance for redemption. GPAs are wiggy at different levels; for my major at my UG, the average GPA was a 3.12 and I was quite ahead of that but am still a splitter at every T13. I see the LSAT as a way to prove my worth more or less to LS's.

[Alexandros]

Splitters game admissions. I thought that was obvious? Isn't that the entire point of the advice to retake and reapply?

Actually, I'd say people who majored in Poli Sci are "gaming admissions". Isn't the entire point of the advice to major in something like that to spend 4 years drinking and firing off an essay every now and then for the easy "A"?

But the dude who prepped hard for 3 months to beat out 99.5% of the standardized testing population? That dude is someone in whose abilities I trust...

+1 to this

Npret - The term "gaming" implies cheating the system or trying to gain an undeserved advantage. I'm not sure whether you meant it that way or not, hence my asking for clarification.

(Fwiw, I don't think this is relevant at all, but I'm not a splitter and I don't think most of the people ITT arguing against the GRE are.)

[Voyager]

Splitters game admissions. I thought that was obvious? Isn't that the entire point of the advice to retake and reapply?

Actually, I'd say people who majored in Poli Sci are "gaming admissions". Isn't the entire point of the advice to major in something like that to spend 4 years drinking and firing off an essay every now and then for the easy "A"?

I really don't want to come off as a "Bleeding Heart Splitter" or whatever but I don't necearily see either an easy major nor a high LSAT to be someone gaming the system but I do see the LSAT as a chance for redemption. GPAs are wiggy at different levels; for my major at my UG, the average GPA was a 3.12 and I was quite ahead of that but am still a splitter at every T13. I see the LSAT as a way to prove my worth more or less to LS's.

Yes. Exactly. We agree.

And for the record: I majored in Poli Sci. Was just making a counterpoint with the example.

[Npret]

Splitters game admissions. I thought that was obvious? Isn't that the entire point of the advice to retake and reapply?

Actually, I'd say people who majored in Poli Sci are "gaming admissions". Isn't the entire point of the advice to major in something like that to spend 4 years drinking and firing off an essay every now and then for the easy "A"?

But the dude who prepped hard for 3 months to beat out 99.5% of the standardized testing population? That dude is someone in whose abilities I trust...

+1 to this

Npret - The term "gaming" implies cheating the system or trying to gain an undeserved advantage. I'm not sure whether you meant it that way or not, hence my asking for clarification.

(Fwiw, I don't think this is relevant at all, but I'm not a splitter and I don't think most of the people ITT arguing against the GRE are.)

I was using "gaming" to mean working the system to your advantage. That's the way I assumed people were using it when they said Harvard and other schools wanted to use the GRE to game the rankings.

I don't read that in the sense of cheating or being dishonest.

[Alexandros]

.

[Platopus]

Splitters game admissions. I thought that was obvious? Isn't that the entire point of the advice to retake and reapply?

Actually, I'd say people who majored in Poli Sci are "gaming admissions". Isn't the entire point of the advice to major in something like that to spend 4 years drinking and firing off an essay every now and then for the easy "A"?

I'll fully admit to doing this. I switched majors my junior year because I recognized that the philosophy professors were easy graders, and some of my English Lit professors were out to destroy students' confidence. However, I also really, really enjoyed studying philosophy. I think the main benefit to those who game the system is knowing you can major in something easy and which you enjoy, because you have the plan of attending law school and don't have to worry about getting a marketable degree. In retrospect, I would do it all the same anyway, since my high GPA helped me land jobs on the assumption that I was smart, even if it wasn't necessarily true.

[Voyager]

Splitters game admissions. I thought that was obvious? Isn't that the entire point of the advice to retake and reapply?

Actually, I'd say people who majored in Poli Sci are "gaming admissions". Isn't the entire point of the advice to major in something like that to spend 4 years drinking and firing off an essay every now and then for the easy "A"?

I'll fully admit to doing this. I switched majors my junior year because I recognized that the philosophy professors were easy graders, and some of my English Lit professors were out to destroy students' confidence. However, I also really, really enjoyed studying philosophy. I think the main benefit to those who game the system is knowing you can major in something easy and which you enjoy, because you have the plan of attending law school and don't have to worry about getting a marketable degree. In retrospect, I would do it all the same anyway, since my high GPA helped me land jobs on the assumption that I was smart, even if it wasn't necessarily true.

Me too, friend, me too (although I spent my free time having fun and training for the Marines vice getting a 4.0... made that LSAT rather important)

[HarveySpecterr]

splitter death tho? because time to pack it up if so.

Yes, this is what worries me about it. My 3.3 actually makes me a "super splitter" at most of the top schools, so I'm depending on a high LSAT and strong softs to get in. Seems like they won't need my 170+ LSAT as much anymore if they can fill a bunch of seats with high GPAs who aced the GRE (generally an easier test).

[34iplaw]

I feel it's pretty commonly considered that the LSAT favors certain groups over others. As we well know on this site it's possible to raise your score significantly by studying hardcore if you aren't a natural.

Regarding these two points, are they not true of the GRE?

Regarding the first, I would not be surprised if the GRE favored certain groups even more than the LSAT does. My rationale for this would be the increased reliance on math learned in high school and vocabulary which would benefit people of more privileged background generally, I suspect.

Regarding the second, I think there are problems with using references to what is possible rather than likely or typical. I imagine it is not uncommon for peoples' cold GRE to be markedly lower than their actual GRE as well. I suspect people make huge improvements on the GRE by reviewing vocabulary and high school math much like they do when they study the games section of the LSAT. I would also imagine that people can make huge improvements to their GRE by studying the test.

All that said, I know you did not specifically say that the GRE does not have these problems, but it would be an unusual strategy to point them out as flaws of the LSAT when, to me, they just seem like problems with standardized testing in general.

[Scurvy Cur]

The GRE is definitely a test you can study for. Generally, claims that a test covers "aptitude" and can't be learned/improved on with study will be false for most standardized tests, and the GRE is no exception.

A review of trigonometry, algebra, and geometry ought to be enough to put most students well into the high scores on the quantitative reasoning section, but a lack of either review or a major that keeps math fresh in your mind almost certainly condemns you to doing poorly, because of how much of the test is about remembering how to factor algebraic equations, how to deal with the multiplication and division of exponents, geometric proofs (congruent angles, intersections across parallel lines, etc), and basic trigonometry (knowing perfect ratio right triangles alone will probably net you 2-4 right answers).

Likewise, the verbal section can be studied for. The reading comprehension questions can be prepped for by exactly the same methods you'd use to bump your LSAT RC up. Vocabulary can be drilled, because most of the vocab questions really focus on a list of 700-900 words, and that list doesn't change all that much from test to test.

I don't see how widespread adoption of this test would in any way change the dynamic of rewarding students for diligently studying for an entrance exam.