TLS c/o 2021 Applicants Thread Forum

[Platopus]

.

[MrAdultman]

In case anyone missed the news:

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... rance_test

Yeah this seems like it might be the last good cycle for super-splitters.

Wouldn't it be better for splitters next cycle because schools can easily take high GPA GRE applicants to keep their median GPA up, and avoid taking reverse splitters so their LSAT doesn't drop? Seems like reverse splitters will be in a worse way

That makes sense. I imagined that schools could balance their GPA medians by taking more High GPA GRE applicants and use a smaller amount of higher LSATs. That way, they don't have to take as many splitters just to keep their LSAT up.

Personally, I think the GRE is going to be bad for everyone, except those with only a GRE. I doubt it'll have much impact this cycle, since I'd imagine most people who will be applying or who have seriously considered applying will have already signed up for or taken a LSAT.

In general though, I think there is going to be a premium on high GPA, high GRE candidates. Reverse splitters will suffer the most, since high GPA's are already a dime a dozen. Solid applicants > 75%'s will be fine, but more uncertainty for medium splitters. This might just be a blessing for super-splitters.

As far as the impact this cycle, it's just Harvard and U of A that are accepting this year, correct?

So are law schools going to start adding their GRE median to their numbers? Is USNWR going to start factoring another test into their rankings? And, dare I say it, are law schools possibly going to start assessing a candidate's lawyer potential instead of just two numbers?

[Slippin' Jimmy]

Because I'm bored at work... What T14 optional essays are you all opting to do? I've finished one for Penn (on teamwork) and trying to come up with something for Michigan.

Already finished my why UVA, and will also write a why Duke, Michigan and Texas.

[OakBrook2021]

As far as the impact this cycle, it's just Harvard and U of A that are accepting this year, correct?

GULC is accepting GRE this cycle as well

[BronxToBoston]

.

[MrAdultman]

As far as the impact this cycle, it's just Harvard and U of A that are accepting this year, correct?

GULC is accepting GRE this cycle as well

Oops, I misread the original article and thought it didn't kick in til next year! Thanks for the catch.

[tuna_wasabi]

In case anyone missed the news:

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... rance_test

Yeah this seems like it might be the last good cycle for super-splitters.

Wouldn't it be better for splitters next cycle because schools can easily take high GPA GRE applicants to keep their median GPA up, and avoid taking reverse splitters so their LSAT doesn't drop? Seems like reverse splitters will be in a worse way

That makes sense. I imagined that schools could balance their GPA medians by taking more High GPA GRE applicants and use a smaller amount of higher LSATs. That way, they don't have to take as many splitters just to keep their LSAT up.

Personally, I think the GRE is going to be bad for everyone, except those with only a GRE. I doubt it'll have much impact this cycle, since I'd imagine most people who will be applying or who have seriously considered applying will have already signed up for or taken a LSAT.

In general though, I think there is going to be a premium on high GPA, high GRE candidates. Reverse splitters will suffer the most, since high GPA's are already a dime a dozen. Solid applicants > 75%'s will be fine, but more uncertainty for medium splitters. This might just be a blessing for super-splitters.

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

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."

Is this requirement still on?

Honestly I'm not happy about these changes. I feel that the LSAT is one of the fairest, most meritocratic part of the admissions process. The GRE is astoundingly similar to the SAT.

[Jack_Kelly]

If it is, oof for reverse splitters.

[wannabegenius]

checking in

[Future Ex-Engineer]

Honestly I'm not happy about these changes. I feel that the LSAT is one of the fairest, most meritocratic part of the admissions process. The GRE is astoundingly similar to the SAT.

Except the GRE is much easier.

I like having the LSAT be the gatekeeper.

[tuna_wasabi]

.

[selmangh]

Checking in

[selmangh]

Honestly I'm not happy about these changes. I feel that the LSAT is one of the fairest, most meritocratic part of the admissions process. The GRE is astoundingly similar to the SAT.

Except the GRE is much easier.

I like having the LSAT be the gatekeeper.

Plus it's the most obvious indicator for students who are[/b ]actually interested in doing a JD. I could imagine some people who have good GRE scores will just throw in an app just for the lulz.

It makes sense for medical schools to accept only MCAT. So why not only LSAT for law schools?

Just to play devil's advocate a bit, I'm international and in my country the LSAT is only offered in one test centre, once a year. This year it happened to fall right in the middle of Ramadan, which was a nightmare for all the reasons you might imagine. By contrast the GRE is offered in 5 cities with at least one date a month and you get your score pretty much immediately. I agree that the LSAT's harder and a better test of law-related skills but it's also really inaccessible for some people. So I'm a little more positive about these changes than most.

[Future Ex-Engineer]

Just to play devil's advocate a bit, I'm international and in my country the LSAT is only offered in one test centre, once a year. This year it happened to fall right in the middle of Ramadan, which was a nightmare for all the reasons you might imagine. By contrast the GRE is offered in 5 cities with at least one date a month and you get your score pretty much immediately. I agree that the LSAT's harder and a better test of law-related skills but it's also really inaccessible for some people. So I'm a little more positive about these changes than most.

You make a valid point, but at the same time, I look at the profession of law as a whole and see that it really isn't about (never has been, probably never will be) inclusion and accessibility.

I think a lot of schools already take chances on good-great LSAT scorers with little else to base the decision on because of the mysterious GPA segment most internationals have. How weird will it be for a top school to now take someone on the basis of the results of an easier test with even less of a track record of predictive success in school?

[tuna_wasabi]

.

[Gordon_Cole]

Honestly I'm not happy about these changes. I feel that the LSAT is one of the fairest, most meritocratic part of the admissions process. The GRE is astoundingly similar to the SAT.

Except the GRE is much easier.

I like having the LSAT be the gatekeeper.

Plus it's the most obvious indicator for students who are actually interested in doing a JD. I could imagine some people who have good GRE scores will just throw in an app just for the lulz.

It makes sense for medical schools to accept only MCAT. So why not only LSAT for law schools?

Just to play devil's advocate a bit, I'm international and in my country the LSAT is only offered in one test centre, once a year. This year it happened to fall right in the middle of Ramadan, which was a nightmare for all the reasons you might imagine. By contrast the GRE is offered in 5 cities with at least one date a month and you get your score pretty much immediately. I agree that the LSAT's harder and a better test of law-related skills but it's also really inaccessible for some people. So I'm a little more positive about these changes than most.

Mind if you PM me which country you come from? I'm an international too

What about the job prospects for internationals though? JD is pretty much only applicable to the US and Canada (and even then, there are certain barriers between the US and Canada). And the H1B visa situation in the US is not too hot right now.

GRE does make law school accessible to more applicants, but I think the bulk of its impact will be felt by wealthy international students who for one reason or another decide to not take the LSAT, not by applicants who need to take loans to finance my education. As far as I know, very few schools offer loans to international students (Yale and Harvard are the two that I know of). We do not qualify for federal loans either. Our only options, apart from need-based financial aid and merit scholarship, are loans from banks or own funding. And let's be honest, international students who can afford to foot a JD bill can probably afford to fly to a nearby country to take the LSAT.

Best case scenario is that schools, at least for the first cycle or two, use GRE to recruit primarily STEM applicants - as Harvard, NU, etc have said - into law and uphold the same admissions standards that they have previously had. This is a big maybe, but there's a nonzero chance. Nonetheless, despite the increase in applicants, there will still probably be some optical advantages to LSAT as with GMAT for business school.

[selmangh]

Just to play devil's advocate a bit, I'm international and in my country the LSAT is only offered in one test centre, once a year. This year it happened to fall right in the middle of Ramadan, which was a nightmare for all the reasons you might imagine. By contrast the GRE is offered in 5 cities with at least one date a month and you get your score pretty much immediately. I agree that the LSAT's harder and a better test of law-related skills but it's also really inaccessible for some people. So I'm a little more positive about these changes than most.

You make a valid point, but at the same time, I look at the profession of law as a whole and see that it really isn't about (never has been, probably never will be) inclusion and accessibility.

I think a lot of schools already take chances on good-great LSAT scorers with little else to base the decision on because of the mysterious GPA segment most internationals have. How weird will it be for a top school to now take someone on the basis of the results of an easier test with even less of a track record of predictive success in school?

To be honest, virtually all internationals I know who have gone to T14 law schools are coming from universities that are very well known to the admissions office. They usually have had several students in the past come from the same uni, or faculty members collaborate on research in-country, or study abroad/fellowship programs that they collaborate on. Even people with very good LSAT scores usually get rejected if they're applying from somewhere very unfamiliar. So I don't think transcripts (of people who get in at least) are as much of a mystery as you might think. But this might be specific to my region.

[#gobroncos]

Because I'm bored at work... What T14 optional essays are you all opting to do? I've finished one for Penn (on teamwork) and trying to come up with something for Michigan.

Already finished my why UVA, and will also write a why Duke, Michigan and Texas.

Is there anywhere in which the exact prompts for these essays are compiled. Obviously I could put together a boilerplate "Why X" essay, but I'm guessing some prompts have little nuances like "Where do you see yourself in x years after graduating from X school" that would change the voice or the structure I would use.

[KENYADIGG1T]

SO ready to get the app process going! Top 3 are Yale, Harvard, and Berkeley.

Curious: why Berkeley over Stanford?

There's more to it (I can explain later if you want/I have time) but I'm already at a grad program @ UCB, so Berkeley is attractive because I can do the JD in less time here + don't have to move. Harvard and Yale both have employment outcomes re: legal academia that are worth the move IMO

EDIT: Stanford also doesn't have a legal philosopher in its law faculty. I will still apply, but this is a point against it being in my top 3.

[MrAdultman]

Because I'm bored at work... What T14 optional essays are you all opting to do? I've finished one for Penn (on teamwork) and trying to come up with something for Michigan.

Already finished my why UVA, and will also write a why Duke, Michigan and Texas.

Is there anywhere in which the exact prompts for these essays are compiled. Obviously I could put together a boilerplate "Why X" essay, but I'm guessing some prompts have little nuances like "Where do you see yourself in x years after graduating from X school" that would change the voice or the structure I would use.

Not sure which other schools give optional essay prompts other than DS or Why X, but here are the two I'm aware of:

Penn: https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/98 ... uctionspdf

Michigan: https://www.law.umich.edu/prospectivest ... JD_App.pdf

[StopLawying]

Because I'm bored at work... What T14 optional essays are you all opting to do? I've finished one for Penn (on teamwork) and trying to come up with something for Michigan.

Already finished my why UVA, and will also write a why Duke, Michigan and Texas.

Is there anywhere in which the exact prompts for these essays are compiled. Obviously I could put together a boilerplate "Why X" essay, but I'm guessing some prompts have little nuances like "Where do you see yourself in x years after graduating from X school" that would change the voice or the structure I would use.

Not sure which other schools give optional essay prompts other than DS or Why X, but here are the two I'm aware of:

Penn: https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/98 ... uctionspdf

Michigan: https://www.law.umich.edu/prospectivest ... JD_App.pdf

Georgetown also, although they're very short (250 words)

[Slippin' Jimmy]

SO ready to get the app process going! Top 3 are Yale, Harvard, and Berkeley.

Curious: why Berkeley over Stanford?

EDIT: Stanford also doesn't have a legal philosopher in its law faculty. I will still apply, but this is a point against it being in my top 3.

This honestly is a really poor reason.

[principalagent]

This honestly is a really poor reason.

I know it would be for normal goals and that you shouldn't go to law school to chase environmental or entertainment or health law programs, but if they're writing their dissertation for a PhD in a specific area of legal philosophy, wouldn't it be to their benefit to be at a law school where they have faculty to draw from and do research under? If their goal is legal academia in legal philosophy and they have the PhD in progress (which I'm assuming is the grad program. Otherwise my point is moot), then I don't see this as being all that bad a reason to put Stanford lower down on the priority list.

[jjcorvino]

Just here to say good luck to everyone. Starting at CLS in less than a week and would be happy to talk through any decisions or app questions with all of you (of course there are more qualified people than me, but throwing it out there).

[Slippin' Jimmy]

This honestly is a really poor reason.

I know it would be for normal goals and that you shouldn't go to law school to chase environmental or entertainment or health law programs, but if they're writing their dissertation for a PhD in a specific area of legal philosophy, wouldn't it be to their benefit to be at a law school where they have faculty to draw from and do research under? If their goal is legal academia in legal philosophy and they have the PhD in progress (which I'm assuming is the grad program. Otherwise my point is moot), then I don't see this as being all that bad a reason to put Stanford lower down on the priority list.

Really the only use for a PhD in legal philosophy is academia, which isn't something you should be aiming for unless you go to Yale/Harvard/Chicago (and maybe Columbia).