Implication of more schools taking multiple standardized test? Forum

[Alexandros]

.

[Npret]

What it means is that LS admissions is going to become more like UG admissions, with a focus on grades and softs and how much volunteering you did and all that. Oh, and whether you went to a prestigious undergrad or not.

Bottom line: top law school classes are going to get even more elitist and privileged than they are right now.

You are saying this because you assume everyone will ace the GRE so it becomes a meaningless factor in admissions? It's interesting that the GRE is just as predictive of 1L success as the LSAT.

Just going to input. Studied for the GRE maybe 1.5 months while a senior and scored in the 99%. Wayyyyyyyy easier than the LSAT and I didn't see how it would assist with law very much other than proving you are in fact literate.

The GRE does as good a job as the LSAT at predicting law school success. They must have had a way to distinguish among GRE scores. Or maybe everyone had perfect scores.
I thought applicants would be glad to get rid of the LSAT but you guys aren't and I don't really understand why.
I'm looking forward to seeing what happens with this change.

Because of you get rid of the LSAT, or if you take all of the scores from 173 to 180 and make them two scores - which is how the GRE scale works, essentially, in terms of percentiles (disregarding how much easier the GRE is) - then those who put the effort into performing well on the LSAT, but have weaker UGPAs, softs, UG prestige, etc., will be disadvantaged in admissions. It's not that hard to understand.

So the issue is that using the GRE solves the problem that Harvard had with using the LSAT? I thought people would be happy not to have to focus on the LSAT and just take the GRE as it is simpler.

I guess forgot that people are counting on a high LSAT score to boost them up in the admissions game. Maybe Harvard is tired of that happening? That applicants get in because of an LSAT? Or more likely that applicants are kept out because of a low LSAT or not wanting to take the LSAT at all?

The real problem is that a high LSAT score is already undermined because it is shown as not being better atpredicting 1L grades than the GRE, at least at Harvard, and probably the T14. So what is the point of the LSAT now?

Sorry for not understanding. I would have happily used a GRE score and avoided the LSAT completely.

Edit: also I have a passionate hatred for LSAC after the way they treated legitimately disabled students for years and as a result they are now operating under a court order with DOJ. They became a powerful, unresponsive monopoly. So I am happy to see them being passed by. Should have designed a better test guys.

[dj9i27]

I hope this to be a wake up call to the LSAC to get with the times and change a few things, even if it doesn't affect me others should not be subjected to this rather archaic form of testing. If a month or so from now, the LSAC announces that it is adopting similar testing conditions to the GRE (a la multiple dates and the abolition of the 3 takes in 2 years) then it will be a win.

I agree with Npret on how the LSAT isn't necessarily a teller of LS success but, I've always looked at it as a rite of passage akin to the MCAT. It is an animal you have to conquer to gain access to LS. Alex did a good job laying out the pros of a high LSAT, one thing I am curious tho is applicants with low GPA and high GRE/LSAT scores.

[Alexandros]

.

[Alexandros]

.

[dj9i27]

I hope this to be a wake up call to the LSAC to get with the times and change a few things, even if it doesn't affect me others should not be subjected to this rather archaic form of testing. If a month or so from now, the LSAC announces that it is adopting similar testing conditions to the GRE (a la multiple dates and the abolition of the 3 takes in 2 years) then it will be a win.

I agree with Npret on how the LSAT isn't necessarily a teller of LS success but, I've always looked at it as a rite of passage akin to the MCAT. It is an animal you have to conquer to gain access to LS. Alex did a good job laying out the pros of a high LSAT, one thing I am curious tho is applicants with low GPA and high GRE/LSAT scores.

Yeah, I hope so too.

I think I'd be less bitter if I could use the LSAT to get into, like, grad school or something, but I can't.

Well, I am conflicted how to feel on the subject matter. I'll have high standardized test scores come application time but a 'meh' GPA so if the LSAT remains king, of course I want that to stay for $$$. On the other hand, the point about the LSAT being for those who are serious is extremely valid imo. Why don't med schools adopt the GRE as well? I always thought that you had to endure the MCAT in order to convey the interest of med school by sitting in a room for 9 hours and hopefully scoring high; I've always looked at the LSAT the same way. If you want to go to LS, take this and then we'll talk.

[Alexandros]

.

[dj9i27]

I hope this to be a wake up call to the LSAC to get with the times and change a few things, even if it doesn't affect me others should not be subjected to this rather archaic form of testing. If a month or so from now, the LSAC announces that it is adopting similar testing conditions to the GRE (a la multiple dates and the abolition of the 3 takes in 2 years) then it will be a win.

I agree with Npret on how the LSAT isn't necessarily a teller of LS success but, I've always looked at it as a rite of passage akin to the MCAT. It is an animal you have to conquer to gain access to LS. Alex did a good job laying out the pros of a high LSAT, one thing I am curious tho is applicants with low GPA and high GRE/LSAT scores.

Yeah, I hope so too.

I think I'd be less bitter if I could use the LSAT to get into, like, grad school or something, but I can't.

Well, I am conflicted how to feel on the subject matter. I'll have high standardized test scores come application time but a 'meh' GPA so if the LSAT remains king, of course I want that to stay for $$$. On the other hand, the point about the LSAT being for those who are serious is extremely valid imo. Why don't med schools adopt the GRE as well? I always thought that you had to endure the MCAT in order to convey the interest of med school by sitting in a room for 9 hours and hopefully scoring high; I've always looked at the LSAT the same way. If you want to go to LS, take this and then we'll talk.

Exactly. Urgh.

Also very nervous because I won't be applying until 2018 at the earliest. And who knows what the situation'll be then. Ugh.

Maybe H will drop it completely but, I doubt the others in the T13 will immediately jump on the bandwagon after year one. Something says, 3-5 years until the majority is in if they decide to.
I really just hope this isn't splitter death. Then again, that 3.2 got Darrow the other day so, LS admissions remains interesting.

[Alexandros]

I hope this to be a wake up call to the LSAC to get with the times and change a few things, even if it doesn't affect me others should not be subjected to this rather archaic form of testing. If a month or so from now, the LSAC announces that it is adopting similar testing conditions to the GRE (a la multiple dates and the abolition of the 3 takes in 2 years) then it will be a win.

I agree with Npret on how the LSAT isn't necessarily a teller of LS success but, I've always looked at it as a rite of passage akin to the MCAT. It is an animal you have to conquer to gain access to LS. Alex did a good job laying out the pros of a high LSAT, one thing I am curious tho is applicants with low GPA and high GRE/LSAT scores.

Yeah, I hope so too.

I think I'd be less bitter if I could use the LSAT to get into, like, grad school or something, but I can't.

Well, I am conflicted how to feel on the subject matter. I'll have high standardized test scores come application time but a 'meh' GPA so if the LSAT remains king, of course I want that to stay for $$$. On the other hand, the point about the LSAT being for those who are serious is extremely valid imo. Why don't med schools adopt the GRE as well? I always thought that you had to endure the MCAT in order to convey the interest of med school by sitting in a room for 9 hours and hopefully scoring high; I've always looked at the LSAT the same way. If you want to go to LS, take this and then we'll talk.

Exactly. Urgh.

Also very nervous because I won't be applying until 2018 at the earliest. And who knows what the situation'll be then. Ugh.

Maybe H will drop it completely but, I doubt the others in the T13 will immediately jump on the bandwagon after year one. Something says, 3-5 years until the majority is in if they decide to.
I really just hope this isn't splitter death. Then again, that 3.2 got Darrow the other day so, LS admissions remains interesting.

Yeah, I hope not. guh. Just worried about Spivey's tweet at the top there "Breaking! ABA working on plan to allow for other standardized tests (read GRE) not likely to into effect until 2018-2019 cycle, if approved". Sounds like not just H?

And you'll be fine. You're applying before they implement it.

[dj9i27]

I hope this to be a wake up call to the LSAC to get with the times and change a few things, even if it doesn't affect me others should not be subjected to this rather archaic form of testing. If a month or so from now, the LSAC announces that it is adopting similar testing conditions to the GRE (a la multiple dates and the abolition of the 3 takes in 2 years) then it will be a win.

I agree with Npret on how the LSAT isn't necessarily a teller of LS success but, I've always looked at it as a rite of passage akin to the MCAT. It is an animal you have to conquer to gain access to LS. Alex did a good job laying out the pros of a high LSAT, one thing I am curious tho is applicants with low GPA and high GRE/LSAT scores.

Yeah, I hope so too.

I think I'd be less bitter if I could use the LSAT to get into, like, grad school or something, but I can't.

Well, I am conflicted how to feel on the subject matter. I'll have high standardized test scores come application time but a 'meh' GPA so if the LSAT remains king, of course I want that to stay for $$$. On the other hand, the point about the LSAT being for those who are serious is extremely valid imo. Why don't med schools adopt the GRE as well? I always thought that you had to endure the MCAT in order to convey the interest of med school by sitting in a room for 9 hours and hopefully scoring high; I've always looked at the LSAT the same way. If you want to go to LS, take this and then we'll talk.

Exactly. Urgh.

Also very nervous because I won't be applying until 2018 at the earliest. And who knows what the situation'll be then. Ugh.

Maybe H will drop it completely but, I doubt the others in the T13 will immediately jump on the bandwagon after year one. Something says, 3-5 years until the majority is in if they decide to.
I really just hope this isn't splitter death. Then again, that 3.2 got Darrow the other day so, LS admissions remains interesting.

Yeah, I hope not. guh. Just worried about Spivey's tweet at the top there "Breaking! ABA working on plan to allow for other standardized tests (read GRE) not likely to into effect until 2018-2019 cycle, if approved". Sounds like not just H?

And you'll be fine. You're applying before they implement it.

Puts fire under my ass, that's for sure. I wonder if they're taking MCAT scores too? So, if the ABA is allowing other standardized tests, does it mean all law schools have to abide by that rule?

[GoLandcrabs]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyJBPfQv1wQ

This is really panicking me. It's June and October or I'm screwed (want to ED at NU).

[appind]

Why is there such a sudden push to allow the gre? Just so schools can admit exclusively high gpa students?

It gives Harvard a way to accept lower performing students without impacting their school ranking because only the LSAT score is figured into rank, currently.

You think Harvard is worried about their rank? They have people here paying sticker over full scholarships to Chicago.

What I think is that they are not happy with the classes they are getting but they won't or can't admit solely on the basis of GPA, recommendation and resume. I feel that they see the LSAT is not such a required predictor of success as people here seem to think it is and that they see the GRE is able to perform the same function but allow them to get the classes that they want

who usually decides on the bolded in a school such as H? it's a combo of school's dean (not just admissions), placements, industry trends etc but that's very general. a big move such as this has to have one bigfoot (possibly university dean) bent on making such a change or such things never get implemented in practice.

i've also noticed that Harvard's adcom constantly change every couple of years. anyone know why that's so?
one would think that harvard law admissions could probably be one of the most prestigious and powerful positions in academic gatekeeping, so people leaving that position voluntarily so early seems kinda strange. and some of them leaving for relatively obscure positions in consulting is particularly strange (like one of the partners at an admissions consulting that is on TLS).

[appind]

What it means is that LS admissions is going to become more like UG admissions, with a focus on grades and softs and how much volunteering you did and all that. Oh, and whether you went to a prestigious undergrad or not.

Bottom line: top law school classes are going to get even more elitist and privileged than they are right now.

You are saying this because you assume everyone will ace the GRE so it becomes a meaningless factor in admissions? It's interesting that the GRE is just as predictive of 1L success as the LSAT.

Just going to input. Studied for the GRE maybe 1.5 months while a senior and scored in the 99%. Wayyyyyyyy easier than the LSAT and I didn't see how it would assist with law very much other than proving you are in fact literate.

The GRE does as good a job as the LSAT at predicting law school success. They must have had a way to distinguish among GRE scores. Or maybe everyone had perfect scores.
I thought applicants would be glad to get rid of the LSAT but you guys aren't and I don't really understand why.
I'm looking forward to seeing what happens with this change.

Because of you get rid of the LSAT, or if you take all of the scores from 173 to 180 and make them two scores - which is how the GRE scale works, essentially, in terms of percentiles (disregarding how much easier the GRE is) - then those who put the effort into performing well on the LSAT, but have weaker UGPAs, softs, UG prestige, etc., will be disadvantaged in admissions. It's not that hard to understand.

So the issue is that using the GRE solves the problem that Harvard had with using the LSAT? I thought people would be happy not to have to focus on the LSAT and just take the GRE as it is simpler.

I guess forgot that people are counting on a high LSAT score to boost them up in the admissions game. Maybe Harvard is tired of that happening? That applicants get in because of an LSAT? Or more likely that applicants are kept out because of a low LSAT or not wanting to take the LSAT at all?

The real problem is that a high LSAT score is already undermined because it is shown as not being better atpredicting 1L grades than the GRE, at least at Harvard, and probably the T14. So what is the point of the LSAT now?

Sorry for not understanding. I would have happily used a GRE score and avoided the LSAT completely.

Edit: also I have a passionate hatred for LSAC after the way they treated legitimately disabled students for years and as a result they are now operating under a court order with DOJ. They became a powerful, unresponsive monopoly. So I am happy to see them being passed by. Should have designed a better test guys.

there are points to be made for either side. LSAT can be "bad" test to use for H if they see it as needless admissions boost based on a single test, or it can be "good" test for them if they see it as an opportunity for those who want to redeem their academic record. it's essentially a value judgment for H and with the recent LSAT medians going down, i think the balance tilted it in favor of them accepting another standardized test, in this case GRE. clearly despite LSAT being a tedious test to prep for, this forum is going to be biased in favor of LSAT because after all this is an LSAT prep forum.

as for the LSAC, i think any organization that applies general heavy-handed rules or boosts/dents without considering individual cases is usually pretty terrible. legit disabled not getting fair treatment is terrible but it seems to me so is someone with a very mild case of some nebulous ADD having the right documentation which a lot of people can't afford getting much relaxed accommodations that i think can make one's score go from 150 to 170 for the same test.

[usaorbust]

I hope this to be a wake up call to the LSAC to get with the times and change a few things, even if it doesn't affect me others should not be subjected to this rather archaic form of testing. If a month or so from now, the LSAC announces that it is adopting similar testing conditions to the GRE (a la multiple dates and the abolition of the 3 takes in 2 years) then it will be a win.

I agree with Npret on how the LSAT isn't necessarily a teller of LS success but, I've always looked at it as a rite of passage akin to the MCAT. It is an animal you have to conquer to gain access to LS. Alex did a good job laying out the pros of a high LSAT, one thing I am curious tho is applicants with low GPA and high GRE/LSAT scores.

Yeah, I hope so too.

I think I'd be less bitter if I could use the LSAT to get into, like, grad school or something, but I can't.

Well, I am conflicted how to feel on the subject matter. I'll have high standardized test scores come application time but a 'meh' GPA so if the LSAT remains king, of course I want that to stay for $$$. On the other hand, the point about the LSAT being for those who are serious is extremely valid imo. Why don't med schools adopt the GRE as well? I always thought that you had to endure the MCAT in order to convey the interest of med school by sitting in a room for 9 hours and hopefully scoring high; I've always looked at the LSAT the same way. If you want to go to LS, take this and then we'll talk.

Exactly. Urgh.

Also very nervous because I won't be applying until 2018 at the earliest. And who knows what the situation'll be then. Ugh.

Maybe H will drop it completely but, I doubt the others in the T13 will immediately jump on the bandwagon after year one. Something says, 3-5 years until the majority is in if they decide to.
I really just hope this isn't splitter death. Then again, that 3.2 got Darrow the other day so, LS admissions remains interesting.

Yeah, I hope not. guh. Just worried about Spivey's tweet at the top there "Breaking! ABA working on plan to allow for other standardized tests (read GRE) not likely to into effect until 2018-2019 cycle, if approved". Sounds like not just H?

And you'll be fine. You're applying before they implement it.

Puts fire under my ass, that's for sure. I wonder if they're taking MCAT scores too? So, if the ABA is allowing other standardized tests, does it mean all law schools have to abide by that rule?

I don't think all schools would have to take other standardized tests, I think it just gives greater justification for schools if they want to expand. Or thats at least what it seems.

[Npret]

What it means is that LS admissions is going to become more like UG admissions, with a focus on grades and softs and how much volunteering you did and all that. Oh, and whether you went to a prestigious undergrad or not.

Bottom line: top law school classes are going to get even more elitist and privileged than they are right now.

You are saying this because you assume everyone will ace the GRE so it becomes a meaningless factor in admissions? It's interesting that the GRE is just as predictive of 1L success as the LSAT.

Just going to input. Studied for the GRE maybe 1.5 months while a senior and scored in the 99%. Wayyyyyyyy easier than the LSAT and I didn't see how it would assist with law very much other than proving you are in fact literate.

The GRE does as good a job as the LSAT at predicting law school success. They must have had a way to distinguish among GRE scores. Or maybe everyone had perfect scores.
I thought applicants would be glad to get rid of the LSAT but you guys aren't and I don't really understand why.
I'm looking forward to seeing what happens with this change.

Because of you get rid of the LSAT, or if you take all of the scores from 173 to 180 and make them two scores - which is how the GRE scale works, essentially, in terms of percentiles (disregarding how much easier the GRE is) - then those who put the effort into performing well on the LSAT, but have weaker UGPAs, softs, UG prestige, etc., will be disadvantaged in admissions. It's not that hard to understand.

So the issue is that using the GRE solves the problem that Harvard had with using the LSAT? I thought people would be happy not to have to focus on the LSAT and just take the GRE as it is simpler.

I guess forgot that people are counting on a high LSAT score to boost them up in the admissions game. Maybe Harvard is tired of that happening? That applicants get in because of an LSAT? Or more likely that applicants are kept out because of a low LSAT or not wanting to take the LSAT at all?

The real problem is that a high LSAT score is already undermined because it is shown as not being better atpredicting 1L grades than the GRE, at least at Harvard, and probably the T14. So what is the point of the LSAT now?

Sorry for not understanding. I would have happily used a GRE score and avoided the LSAT completely.

Edit: also I have a passionate hatred for LSAC after the way they treated legitimately disabled students for years and as a result they are now operating under a court order with DOJ. They became a powerful, unresponsive monopoly. So I am happy to see them being passed by. Should have designed a better test guys.

there are points to be made for either side. LSAT can be "bad" test to use for H if they see it as needless admissions boost based on a single test, or it can be "good" test for them if they see it as an opportunity for those who want to redeem their academic record. it's essentially a value judgment for H and with the recent LSAT medians going down, i think the balance tilted it in favor of them accepting another standardized test, in this case GRE. clearly despite LSAT being a tedious test to prep for, this forum is going to be biased in favor of LSAT because after all this is an LSAT prep forum.

as for the LSAC, i think any organization that applies general heavy-handed rules or boosts/dents without considering individual cases is usually pretty terrible. legit disabled not getting fair treatment is terrible but it seems to me so is someone with a very mild case of some nebulous ADD having the right documentation which a lot of people can't afford getting much relaxed accommodations that i think can make one's score go from 150 to 170 for the same test.

You need to read the documents about the case. They got away with treating people like garbage for years. I hope they are severely damaged by this change.

[appind]

there are points to be made for either side. LSAT can be "bad" test to use for H if they see it as needless admissions boost based on a single test, or it can be "good" test for them if they see it as an opportunity for those who want to redeem their academic record. it's essentially a value judgment for H and with the recent LSAT medians going down, i think the balance tilted it in favor of them accepting another standardized test, in this case GRE. clearly despite LSAT being a tedious test to prep for, this forum is going to be biased in favor of LSAT because after all this is an LSAT prep forum.

as for the LSAC, i think any organization that applies general heavy-handed rules or boosts/dents without considering individual cases is usually pretty terrible. legit disabled not getting fair treatment is terrible but it seems to me so is someone with a very mild case of some nebulous ADD having the right documentation which a lot of people can't afford getting much relaxed accommodations that i think can make one's score go from 150 to 170 for the same test.

You need to read the documents about the case. They got away with treating people like garbage for years. I hope they are severely damaged by this change.

is that a surprise? they still treat people like garbage.
no one is disputing that LSAC is terrible and ham-fisted. it's a pilot program so regardless lsat is going to be there for most of the schools.

[AJordan]

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. There will be a nonzero amount, sure, but one only has to look at how many "omg retake" responses get bandied about this site to categorize the average test taker even diligent enough to find TLS.

Bottom line is, it's going to get more competitive eventually but not any more than it already was going to be this upcoming cycle and likely not for a few years following by any significant measure. Use it as motivation to make yourself/your application better. Allowing the news to bury you in neurotic thoughts may be doing you a favor. You're learning now that the world sucks sometimes. It isn't fair. We've got to do our best in the face of hardship. Use the news to make your app that much stronger. That's probably going to help you more than the increased apps are going to hurt you.

I'm a 2018er as well. Let's push toward the silver lining. Harvard dean said applicants submitting LSAT and GRE together went against the spirit of what they were trying to do. Yeah, you go ahead and listen to that. I'm gonna do my damndest to submit a 335 GRE with my already earned 174 LSAT.

[34iplaw]

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.

I don't think anyone is really making that claim here, but I'm sure some have elsewhere. I think more people make the claim that anyone with a 170 or higher could probably get a perfect (or extremely close to perfect) GRE score. Based on percentiles and the idea that the GRE is definitely an easier test than the LSAT, I don't think that is entirely unfair despite being a bit of a generalization. Some may find the GRE harder, but I think most would find it easier. The hardest part would be some of the vocab (which is a bit more luck based to an extent) and math concepts you have forgotten. The GRE time constraints are also easier as far as I am aware (I'm just starting to study for it now for possible dual degrees) based on a practice test I did. To me, that is the biggest difference between the two tests. I'll have to report back as I do more prep for it, but I think, personally, the GRE will be a far easier test than the LSAT due to my propensity to make silly mistakes under significant time constraints. It may take some time to learn some of the vocab, as they do use some relatively out there vocab it seems.

[34iplaw]

The GRE does as good a job as the LSAT at predicting law school success. They must have had a way to distinguish among GRE scores. Or maybe everyone had perfect scores.
I thought applicants would be glad to get rid of the LSAT but you guys aren't and I don't really understand why.
I'm looking forward to seeing what happens with this change.

That sort of hits on the reason I am a little skeptical about it. While HYS+Columbia are a bit unique in this extent, but half of their classes (roughly) have at least a 99%ile LSAT. I suppose I am skeptical about the range of GRE scores represented among HLS' class given how compressed the GRE scoring scale is compared to the LSAT in dividing the top 1% of test-takers. IIRC, LSAT has 8 points on it's scoring scale devoted to the top 1% whereas the GRE only has 1 or 2. I also have the belief that probably more 170+ scorers than not can get a perfect or near perfect GRE score which would further exacerbate this issue, but it's not a really provable fact so I won't present it as one or defend it as one

Could Harvard get meaningful data out of what I imagine is a fairly small and compressed set? If anyone can, it's them.

[Alexandros]

.

[Clyde Frog]

What it means is that LS admissions is going to become more like UG admissions, with a focus on grades and softs and how much volunteering you did and all that. Oh, and whether you went to a prestigious undergrad or not.

Bottom line: top law school classes are going to get even more elitist and privileged than they are right now.

You are saying this because you assume everyone will ace the GRE so it becomes a meaningless factor in admissions? It's interesting that the GRE is just as predictive of 1L success as the LSAT.

I don't think it's fair to say that it's as predictive. You're going by students who scored around 99% percentile on their LSAT and on their GRE that got admitted into HLS. I'd love to see the predictive nature of the GRE of someone with a 99% GRE score and 80% LSAT score in law school.

[ms9]

Why is there such a sudden push to allow the gre? Just so schools can admit exclusively high gpa students?

It gives Harvard a way to accept lower performing students without impacting their school ranking because only the LSAT score is figured into rank, currently.

But if the ABA lets every school do that, as spivey's tweet implies, wouldn't that give every school the opportunity to game the rankings?

It isn't just gaming the rankings. I'm sure the reporting requirement will also change. It's that the LSAT isn't as necessary to admit students as people want to assume it is.

Precisely. USNWR already does this for b-schools and the GRE and LSAT will be very easy to equate. So it will ultimately just put the LSAT and GRE on equal footing.

Also I have the letter the ABA sent out, which essentially says "highly unlikely anything happens get mass approved until 2018-2019 cycle."

[usaorbust]

Why is there such a sudden push to allow the gre? Just so schools can admit exclusively high gpa students?

It gives Harvard a way to accept lower performing students without impacting their school ranking because only the LSAT score is figured into rank, currently.

But if the ABA lets every school do that, as spivey's tweet implies, wouldn't that give every school the opportunity to game the rankings?

It isn't just gaming the rankings. I'm sure the reporting requirement will also change. It's that the LSAT isn't as necessary to admit students as people want to assume it is.

Precisely. USNWR already does this for b-schools and the GRE and LSAT will be very easy to equate. So it will ultimately just put the LSAT and GRE on equal footing.

Also I have the letter the ABA sent out, which essentially says "highly unlikely anything happens get mass approved until 2018-2019 cycle."

So if the ABA does approve the GRE or other standardized tests, say somewhere in the middle of this upcoming cycle, is it likely that by the 2018-2019 or 2019-2020 cycle hat most law schools will all be accepting those forums of standardized tests? Or do they have the option to only accept the LSAT if they wanted to?

[ms9]

Why is there such a sudden push to allow the gre? Just so schools can admit exclusively high gpa students?

It gives Harvard a way to accept lower performing students without impacting their school ranking because only the LSAT score is figured into rank, currently.

But if the ABA lets every school do that, as spivey's tweet implies, wouldn't that give every school the opportunity to game the rankings?

It isn't just gaming the rankings. I'm sure the reporting requirement will also change. It's that the LSAT isn't as necessary to admit students as people want to assume it is.

Precisely. USNWR already does this for b-schools and the GRE and LSAT will be very easy to equate. So it will ultimately just put the LSAT and GRE on equal footing.

Also I have the letter the ABA sent out, which essentially says "highly unlikely anything happens get mass approved until 2018-2019 cycle."

So if the ABA does approve the GRE or other standardized tests, say somewhere in the middle of this upcoming cycle, is it likely that by the 2018-2019 or 2019-2020 cycle hat most law schools will all be accepting those forums of standardized tests? Or do they have the option to only accept the LSAT if they wanted to?

This is taken word for word from the ABA letter. I do not know how to be any more clear:

"We do not expect this plan, should it be approved by the Council, to be fully operational prior to the 2018-2019 admissions cycle leading to the 1L class that would enroll in the 2019 fall semester"

Nothing en masse is going to happen this cycle. It is next to impossible. And very unlikely for next.

[Voyager]

What it means is that LS admissions is going to become more like UG admissions, with a focus on grades and softs and how much volunteering you did and all that. Oh, and whether you went to a prestigious undergrad or not.

Bottom line: top law school classes are going to get even more elitist and privileged than they are right now.

You are saying this because you assume everyone will ace the GRE so it becomes a meaningless factor in admissions? It's interesting that the GRE is just as predictive of 1L success as the LSAT.

Just going to input. Studied for the GRE maybe 1.5 months while a senior and scored in the 99%. Wayyyyyyyy easier than the LSAT and I didn't see how it would assist with law very much other than proving you are in fact literate.

The GRE does as good a job as the LSAT at predicting law school success. They must have had a way to distinguish among GRE scores. Or maybe everyone had perfect scores.
I thought applicants would be glad to get rid of the LSAT but you guys aren't and I don't really understand why.
I'm looking forward to seeing what happens with this change.

Well... the GRE is a much easier test to take as stated above. Super easier, having taken both (admittedly, only took GRE in practice conditions so I could teach GRE prep as well as LSAT prep). I would like to see data showing that GRE performance is as predictive as LSAT performance for law school.

This is obviously a play to allow segments of the population that are bad at the LSAT to have a shot at Harvard without impacting Harvard's LSAT scores. It also will allow many more people to apply which is probably meant to address the massive declines in law school admissions.

Look: the LSAT acts as a barrier to law school. That's a GOOD THING. Law school is supposed to be a professional trade school that requires certain foundational abilities. If you don't have those abilities, you are going to waste a ton of money and time to get- at best- a very shitty $60k/year job.

The result of Harvard's move is likely to be MANY schools accepting the GRE... many very shitty schools, to be exact... which facilitates the scaling up of the fleecing shitty law schools perpetrate on many students every year.

Whole thing is sad, frankly. And for what? So Harvard can eke out more applicants.