Yet another GRE question... (score of 335-340) Forum

[AJordan]

Still haven't seen any hard evidence that proves schools are actively using any sort of "conversion" metric between the test. To me, GRE has always felt, at best, like a way to get in some students with above-median GPAs who would otherwise not bother to take the LSAT. I also always kind of thought that GRE as an admissions metric was being used as a way to encourage more URMs into the pool. But that's complete conjecture.

Bottom line, I wouldn't fancy your chances. 1 vote here for: take the year off, get your 170, and apply next cycle.

[dvlthndr]

I question the idea of trying to hit a near-perfect GRE score with minimal studying (even if you did well in the past). Reading between the lines, my suspicion is that you are hoping to throw out apps last minute rather than applying next cycle.

If you can *actually* get a perfect GRE and have your application on file by November, I think you can take your chances and see what happens. The GRE is a black box (and there is the persistent rumor that it will torpedo your financial aid chances). But if you really think you are in the running for a T-6... go for it. Just be aware that you are turning what *could* be a sure thing into a giant crap shoot for the sake of attending in 2020 v. 2021.

[Dipsychus]

I question the idea of trying to hit a near-perfect GRE score with minimal studying (even if you did well in the past). Reading between the lines, my suspicion is that you are hoping to throw out apps last minute rather than applying next cycle.

No, not minimal studying or lack of focus or just "throwing it out there" last minute or being a bored and vague URM (which I'm not in any case). I'm talking about lots of work over two months for the GRE, which I can use before Thanksgiving for the cycle, just not LSAT work for four months which I can use only in mid-January and only once for 20-21. Read into that what you will. Including the fact or "fact" that the GRE is demonstrably easier (though, even if it is: that does not in and of itself make it less predictive). And dozens of hours already expended on making every other part of the application as good as possible.

Look: I'm not trying to wheedle a Yessirree Bob or Of Course Dude answer out of this. All skepticism very welcome. But the response seems to be (here and on other threads): good luck, see ya next cycle, just wait for that 175!

The decision is mine, and mine to own. Well, we'll see. But please continue to weigh in, y'all!

[QContinuum]

No, not minimal studying or lack of focus or just "throwing it out there" last minute or as a bored URM (which I'm not). I'm talking about lots of work over two months for the GRE which I can use before Thanksgiving for the cycle, just not LSAT work for four months which I can use only in mid-January and only once for 20-21. Read into that what you will. Including the fact or "fact" that the GRE is demonstrably easier (though, even if it is: that does not in and of itself make it less predictive). And dozens of hours already expended on making every other part of the application as good as possible.

Look: I'm not trying to wheedle a Yessirree Bob or Of Course Dude answer out of this. All skepticism very welcome. But the response seems to be (here and on other threads): good luck, see ya next cycle, wait for that 175!

The decision is mine, and mine to own. Well, we'll see.

There's no need to be defensive. It's clear you want to hear more support for your GRE plan. You're simply not going to get that on TLS because going GRE-only for law school admissions is like taking a leap into the dark. It may work. It may even work very well. It may not work. Even if it works for admissions, it may not work (or may work less well than a same-percentile LSAT score) for merit aid. But then again, it could work. Outcomes could also vary, perhaps dramatically, from school to school - there's no assurance that each law school considers GRE-only applicants the same way. We just don't know.

So, faced with the choice between prepping for the GRE or the LSAT, the risk-minimizing approach is to go for the LSAT. With an LSAT score, you know, ex ante, exactly where you stand in terms of admissions and scholarship chances. You know with confidence whether or not you need to retake. If you end up significantly underperforming your uGPA and LSAT, you know there's something wrong with your PS, or your LORs, or whatever. But with a GRE score, you simply don't know. You could underperform (e.g., due to a rogue recommender) and end up paying $100k+ more than you otherwise would've had to and not even have a clue anything went wrong.

The LSAT is also accepted at more schools than the GRE. Every ABA law school accepts the LSAT. In contrast, in the T20 alone, a full quarter - Stanford, Michigan, Berkeley, Duke, and Vandy - do not accept the GRE. See https://www.ets.org/gre/revised_general/about/law/ By going GRE-only, you are disqualifying yourself from being considered at both of the California T13s (Stanford and Berkeley), the single most generous merit-aid offeror in the T13 (Michigan), and the strongest-placing school in the T20 (Vandy).

Speaking of which:

3. Would apply only to T14 schools that accept the GRE (10 by now I think).

This is not a "GRE pro." This is most certainly a "GRE con." Why would you want to start out by disqualifying yourself from contention at 4 out of the 13 T13s?

You sound determined to take the GRE. You are attracted to the idea of spending less time studying and applying to law school one cycle sooner, and who wouldn't be? Well, no one here can stop you. If you proceed with your GRE plan, we can only wish you all the best. Whether you recognize it or not, the community only wants the best for you and for the other 0Ls on here. We don't get any jollies out of telling people things they don't want to hear.

[nixy]

I think to the extent you’re getting pushback, it’s because you’re (understandably) raising a lot of questions about stuff that’s relatively well known (obviously not how the GRE is seen, but about law school apps more generally). I came to law school apps with some skepticism b/c I had experience with PhD admissions/programs and approached law school admissions as though it was (or should be) in the same category. And it’s really not. Law school is a very different animal and the application process is really different. (As is the experience itself.) I also thought the previous grad experience made me a really different applicant who’d be treated differently. It didn’t.

So wrt the GRE, Q is right that it’s largely an unknown, and if you want to take that risk that’s absolutely your choice. But culturally this board leans risk averse (because lawyers), so you’re getting some pushback. Also it’s very common to see applicants post here looking for justification to take the easier route (apply quickly, not retake the LSAT, go to a weaker school rather than wait a cycle), so there’s probably some of that coloring how people are responding to your questions.

No one can tell you yes, you should take the GRE instead of the LSAT, because there isn’t evidence yet to support that the way there is a lot of evidence about what LSAT score results in what kind of outcome. It doesn’t mean you’re wrong, but we don’t know.

(Also having got into a grad program at Harvard will probably not make any difference. If you have well-connected profs from the program going to bat for you, maybe it will help a little. If you can explain that experience as part of why you’re now heading to law school in a way that contributes to a compelling narrative, maybe it will help on the margins. If the reason you didn’t finish is going to raise questions about your ability to finish law school, it might hurt you. But getting admitted pronto probably won’t make a difference.)

[Dipsychus]

I’m grateful for the pushback! And apologies if I sounded peevish. Some thoughts for now:

— Not determined to take the GRE only, still figuring it out and will decide soon.
— Yes, as to nixy’s point about approaching this whole process from an academic-ish PhD-type point of view.
— The ETS calculator! It has a five-point margin of error, plus/minus. So, even if the calculator tells you that you have the equivalent LSAT score of 172, that leaves a range obviously of 167-177: what an incredible difference in percentiles. And risk-averse schools might, if they use the calculator in a systematic way at all, be inclined to take a 167ish scorer kind of accounting approach.
— One or two data points, to be interpreted cautiously, from the 509 ABA disclosure forms. For example, Harvard, an early adopter of the GRE for admissions. Number of students enrolling for whom the LSAT was not considered: 18. Might this mean that they admitted only, let’s say, 20-25 students who applied GRE-only? Of course, the number of GRE-only applicants is not known.
— The phrase “pilot program” gets used a lot. At Cornell, for now, I think only 20 students who have not taken the LSAT will be admitted/enrolled. Other schools don’t seem to have specified an actual cap.
— No evidence that a GRE-only applicant will be disadvantaged for a prestigious named scholarship, Rubenstein or Furman or Karsh-Dillard etc, but also no evidence that they will even be considered. And then, other aid (based on need and merit)...
— Basically, the next two or three cycles will give us more data (duh!).
— The Dean Zearfoss (Michigan) interview is astonishingly candid in its anti-GRE-only position.

Thanks for all the input. I am still a neophyte.

PS: If I cancel my January LSAT administration (not cancel my scores, just withdraw for a partial refund), surely that won’t be reported by LSAC! “Was registered to take it as of September but then changed his mind,” that kind of thing.

[QContinuum]

— The ETS calculator! It has a five-point margin of error, plus/minus. So, even if the calculator tells you that you have the equivalent LSAT score of 172, that leaves a range obviously of 167-177: what an incredible difference in percentiles. And risk-averse schools might, if they use the calculator in a systematic way at all, be inclined to take a 167ish scorer kind of accounting approach.

I wouldn't put too much stock in the calculator at all, until and unless we get some indication that law school adcoms actually rely on it. The maker of the calculator - ETS - obviously has a conflict of interest in terms of promoting the GRE.

— The phrase “pilot program” gets used a lot. At Cornell, for now, I think only 20 students who have not taken the LSAT will be admitted/enrolled. Other schools don’t seem to have specified an actual cap.

A further significant point in favor of the LSAT. You don't want to limit yourself to competing for a limited number of "GRE applicant" slots.

PS: If I cancel my January LSAT administration (not cancel my scores, just withdraw for a partial refund), surely that won’t be reported by LSAC! “Was registered to take it as of September but then changed his mind,” that kind of thing.

Even if it is reported, so long as you have a GRE score and don't have any reportable LSAT scores you will still be considered a GRE-only applicant. Schools aren't going to force you to take the LSAT because once upon a time you registered to take it.

[Dipsychus]

Thank you.

That point about a data point from Harvard's 509 was rubbish, btw. The same form tells us that HLS did not consider uGPA for 20 enrollees.The number of GRE-only applicants and admits remains a mystery.

[QContinuum]

Thank you.

That point about a data point from Harvard's 509 was rubbish, btw. The same form tells us that HLS did not consider uGPA for 20 enrollees.

That's not "rubbish." Those 20 enrollees presumably simply did not have a numeric, LSAC-reportable uGPA. I.e., they either graduated from one of a small number of U.S. colleges that don't award traditional grades, or (probably the vast majority of the 20) received their Bachelor's from a non-U.S., non-Canadian college and thus didn't have a numeric, LSAC-reportable uGPA.

[Dipsychus]

A blog post at 7sage suggested calling up law schools’ admissions offices to ask whether GRE-only applicants are automatically eligible for all merit-based scholarships, or whether some/most funds are available only to applicants with high LSAT scores. Is cold-calling an admissions office and asking such a question wise?