Harvard to Allow GRE in Place of LSAT Forum

[etramak]

Of course someone who does well on the LSAT would have done well on GRE. But not vice-versa.

This is a bold and incorrect assumption.

I will modify it to exlcude the quant section.

I really think the vocab questions on the verbal add a level of difficulty to the GRE that the LSAT doesn't have. Especially for a lot of minority and lower income students who grew up in households where English was either not the primary language or was expressed in a very limited way. On the other hand, any difficult vocab that appears on the LSAT is pretty much defined within the context clues. Granted, the RC and LR type questions on the GRE are much much easier, but I still think the difficulty is about the same

[etramak]

Seconded! Going to get my GRE prep materials right now lol :p

After doing minimal research on the GRE I do know that as a pretty serious splitter (LSAT > 75 almost everywhere) I'm 100% going to take the GRE as evidence of another data point of my abilities if this is going to be considered by the committee. So guess what, for some of us this is going to cost even more, Harvard.

I'm almost tempted to take it. I'm not a splitter but my 171 is obviously below the median, so I wonder if a near-perfect to perfect GRE will put me over the edge.

[shadowfax]

Maybe Tiffany did better on the GRE than the lsat.

[cavalier1139]

Does this mean that harvard law school will be harder to get in for kjd with high lsat score w/o good softs?

Why would it mean that? Explain your thought process.

[Ericwa]

I think what H might do in this situation can be like this: Add a question box in the application, asking :Have you already taken or planing to take LSAT? If the answer is yes, then only LSAT will be considered (because i think LSAT is required to be reported in this case). If the answer is no, okay, you can apply with GRE. But then the issue is that a reasonable/serious law school applicant of course has to take LSAT to consider other options. As a result, the only person who can benefit under this policy will be the random Joe who has a high GPA, and wondering why not just apply for fun and see what happens, after all it is H. IMHO, It all depends how H explains its policy. Do you guys think for the guys already have theLSAT taken, can they choose not to report LSAT but only GRE???

[aptivych]

Does anyone know if there's some form of LSAT to GRE conversion? What would a 170 on the LSAT correspond to the GRE, and what would a perfect score on the GRE (is it 170?) correspond to the LSAT? I'm genuinely curious because all the hearsay is that there's way more people getting perfect scores on the GRE than the LSAT. IF that's the case, how is HLS planning on differentiating among all the perfect GRE applicants?

Also, I was just on reddit and saw that there's speculation this might expand to T-12 next year? Could someone with more knowledge please confirm this?

[OnlyHumean]

Does anyone know if there's some form of LSAT to GRE conversion? What would a 170 on the LSAT correspond to the GRE, and what would a perfect score on the GRE (is it 170?) correspond to the LSAT? I'm genuinely curious because all the hearsay is that there's way more people getting perfect scores on the GRE than the LSAT. IF that's the case, how is HLS planning on differentiating among all the perfect GRE applicants?

Also, I was just on reddit and saw that there's speculation this might expand to T-12 next year? Could someone with more knowledge please confirm this?

1. I don't think there is any real way of comparing them other than by looking at how different raw scores and percentiles compare, but even that isn't particularly helpful.

2. Who exactly do you think has knowledge of decisions at 12 different law schools that were all made based on information that was released less than a day ago?

[aptivych]

Does anyone know if there's some form of LSAT to GRE conversion? What would a 170 on the LSAT correspond to the GRE, and what would a perfect score on the GRE (is it 170?) correspond to the LSAT? I'm genuinely curious because all the hearsay is that there's way more people getting perfect scores on the GRE than the LSAT. IF that's the case, how is HLS planning on differentiating among all the perfect GRE applicants?

Also, I was just on reddit and saw that there's speculation this might expand to T-12 next year? Could someone with more knowledge please confirm this?

1. I don't think there is any real way of comparing them other than by looking at how different raw scores and percentiles compare, but even that isn't particularly helpful.

2. Who exactly do you think has knowledge of decisions at 12 different law schools that were all made based on information that was released less than a day ago?

1. Ok, fair. I guess percentiles is the way to go then, for the time being.

2. Hey don't be so harsh - I'm not that naive. But I raised that question in the very slim chance there could be someone on TLS who has even just a small insight into how this might play out in the future. If no one can answer my question, that's fine, it's not like I was expecting an easy answer anyway.

[jjcorvino]

I'm a bit upset about this. I studied hard for my LSAT score and I believe that the LSAT is the hardest standardized test out there. I have a lot of friends that did almost perfect on the GRE after a week of reviewing old concepts. This opens up the gates to a lot of people attending law schools that are not passionate about law. Who wouldn't want to go to Harvard law if they can study for a few weeks for the GRE and ace it? There is no investment for the applicants.

You're invested in the test not the outcome. There are people do well on the LSAT without devoting hours and weeks to studying. If you are a person who read a lot your whole life and you are good at puzzles and logic, you can have a strong base for doing well. That doesn't mean they aren't invested in law.

Who cares if the GRE replaces the LSAT?

I think their point is that the LSAT shows some kind of commitment to attending law school / pursuing the law that the GRE does not, given that the LSAT can only be used for this one thing.

Even if you consider the tests to be an equal investment of time / equally difficult (which most people here seem to doubt) the fact is that the GRE wouldn't represent the same kind of commitment to the idea of attending law school as the LSAT, since it can only be used for one law school, and a million other non-law programs.

That is exactly my point. Someone that takes the GRE might not necessarily be invested in the law. They might apply to every high ranked grad school that accepts the GRE and go to the highest ranked school that accepts them (this would include Harvard law now). I know that attending will still cost the same investment.

[AJordan]

After doing minimal research on the GRE I do know that as a pretty serious splitter (LSAT > 75 almost everywhere) I'm 100% going to take the GRE as evidence of another data point of my abilities if this is going to be considered by the committee. So guess what, for some of us this is going to cost even more, Harvard.

What if you don't break the 85% of the GRE?

Your question is fair. I don't know. I don't anticipate that being a problem. But I don't know.

[AJordan]

Bottom line is that Harvard is most certainly going to be harder to get into. Every other school near the top that takes this approach also becomes more competitive. C'est la vie. Is the GRE easy to cheat on?

[etramak]

Is this pretty much a death sentence for any non URM hopefuls that scored below the LSAT median?

[aptivych]

Maybe Tiffany did better on the GRE than the lsat.

This was my thought too. Also, since this is a pilot program, if there's any backlash against this or if they don't quite get the quality applicant pool they need, Harvard can always abolish this at will, whenever they want.

While on the surface this may appear as good news to those who have high GRE scores, it is my gut feeling that a perfect score on the GRE is not exactly what they are looking for in terms of admissions. A high score on the LSAT will still be seen as useful for most ordinary applicants; among those who apply only with GRE, not only will they need to have a near perfect/perfect score, they will need to be STELLAR in other ways (work experience) or have exceptional family/political connections. That's the only logical explanation that makes sense to me since Harvard adcoms are far from naive; they have years and years of collecting data and would know better than other people that GRE is not the same animal as the LSAT. And I would think they would know better than anyone else that the best lawyers are predicted by a comprehensive and holistic formula where it's numbers PLUS excellent work ethic and a great vision combined... So I can only see the pool becoming more competitive in the future, and not necessarily easier because of the GRE option.

Feel free to disagree but this is my initial reaction to this news.

[Whillie]

Here's what I make of it.
Firstly, I have no doubt that this will open up the floodgates. Many schools are likely to follow. Just look how the academia jumped to defend University of Arizona who established a similar GRE policy. And, according to the Washington Post article up today, many schools are on board.

However, the ABA is scheduled this weekend to make a decision on the matter. I speculate that the ABA will come out an allow all schools to use GRE provided they disclose their admission scores.

The LSAC is probably fuming. This may signal the beginning of the end of the LSAT. Unless you're freakishly good on the LSAT, why would you spend time, money and effort on a test that can only gain access to law school, where you can spend similar resources to a test that can get you to nearly every grad school?

Your thoughts?

[aptivych]

Here's what I make of it.
Firstly, I have no doubt that this will open up the floodgates. Many schools are likely to follow. Just look how the academia jumped to defend University of Arizona who established a similar GRE policy. And, according to the Washington Post article up today, many schools are on board.

However, the ABA is scheduled this weekend to make a decision on the matter. I speculate that the ABA will come out an allow all schools to use GRE provided they disclose their admission scores.

The LSAC is probably fuming. This may signal the beginning of the end of the LSAT. Unless you're freakishly good on the LSAT, why would you spend time, money and effort on a test that can only gain access to law school, where you can spend similar resources to a test that can get you to nearly every grad school?

Your thoughts?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Whillie. Where did you see that the ABA is scheduled this weekend to decide on this?

[OnlyHumean]

Does anyone know if there's some form of LSAT to GRE conversion? What would a 170 on the LSAT correspond to the GRE, and what would a perfect score on the GRE (is it 170?) correspond to the LSAT? I'm genuinely curious because all the hearsay is that there's way more people getting perfect scores on the GRE than the LSAT. IF that's the case, how is HLS planning on differentiating among all the perfect GRE applicants?

Also, I was just on reddit and saw that there's speculation this might expand to T-12 next year? Could someone with more knowledge please confirm this?

1. I don't think there is any real way of comparing them other than by looking at how different raw scores and percentiles compare, but even that isn't particularly helpful.

2. Who exactly do you think has knowledge of decisions at 12 different law schools that were all made based on information that was released less than a day ago?

1. Ok, fair. I guess percentiles is the way to go then, for the time being.

2. Hey don't be so harsh - I'm not that naive. But I raised that question in the very slim chance there could be someone on TLS who has even just a small insight into how this might play out in the future. If no one can answer my question, that's fine, it's not like I was expecting an easy answer anyway.

If all you want is "some insight" into the situation, you can find that in a lot of places. I just think that is something clearly different from asking someone to confirm what 12 other schools are going to do in the upcoming cycle. I don't even think there is a person who even has all that information at this stage, let alone that would be willing to post it here. But whatever, water, bridges, etc.

As for insight here: HLS wasn't the first school to do this, the University of Arizona did it a year ago. ~150 law school Deans (including from HLS) expressed support for the move. Whether this included the rest of the T13, I don't know, but I'm sure it's easy enough to find out.

Then there's this Kaplan survey, done in 2016: http://press.kaptest.com/wp-content/upl ... ptance.pdf

14% of the 200+ ABA schools they surveyed said they "probably" or "definitely" will accept GREs instead of LSATs
53% said they "strongly" or "somewhat" oppose the idea of the LSAT being the only test used in admissions
How many of the other T13 schools where in the above percentages? I don't know.

I assume that Harvard being Harvard, this might open the floodgates for other schools (both those already inclined, and those who are skeptical) but nobody knows that for sure at this point.

[CHyde]

.

[Scurvy Cur]

Well, that and the need to outlay $200k for tuition plus all of the other time to get stuff sorted for applications. That said, I get why people would be upset. I think this is mostly going to hurt fringe admits, and the high GRE will replace their low LSATs. Due to the way the tests are structured, there isn't really an equivalent to a 176 on the GRE. A perfect score on the GRE roughly encompasses the entire band of 172-180 if we go by percentiles.

IIRC, it's a little broader than that, because a flawless score in the analytical section of the GRE is like 96th percentile; there are loads of STEM majors who take the test, and a lots of them only get the analytical questions wrong when they make a dumb mistake. The verbal section is a little more tightly-pegged at the high end, but it's still not incredibly difficult to do exceedingly well on.

My own personal experience, having taken both tests, is that the GRE is a cakewalk. I took a day off of studying for the LSAT to go over a GRE practice test and brush up on formal geometry a couple of days before sitting for the GRE, and got perfect score on it. I'd be seriously shocked if someone who did reasonably well on the LSAT was unable to crush the GRE.

[Whillie]

Here's what I make of it.
Firstly, I have no doubt that this will open up the floodgates. Many schools are likely to follow. Just look how the academia jumped to defend University of Arizona who established a similar GRE policy. And, according to the Washington Post article up today, many schools are on board.

However, the ABA is scheduled this weekend to make a decision on the matter. I speculate that the ABA will come out an allow all schools to use GRE provided they disclose their admission scores.

The LSAC is probably fuming. This may signal the beginning of the end of the LSAT. Unless you're freakishly good on the LSAT, why would you spend time, money and effort on a test that can only gain access to law school, where you can spend similar resources to a test that can get you to nearly every grad school?

Your thoughts?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Whillie. Where did you see that the ABA is scheduled this weekend to decide on this?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/gra ... 3cd64b72e3

It's all in there. I've seen it on ABA website too. The ABA summit is going on now in Santa Monica.

[Npret]

Maybe Tiffany did better on the GRE than the lsat.

This was my thought too. Also, since this is a pilot program, if there's any backlash against this or if they don't quite get the quality applicant pool they need, Harvard can always abolish this at will, whenever they want.

While on the surface this may appear as good news to those who have high GRE scores, it is my gut feeling that a perfect score on the GRE is not exactly what they are looking for in terms of admissions. A high score on the LSAT will still be seen as useful for most ordinary applicants; among those who apply only with GRE, not only will they need to have a near perfect/perfect score, they will need to be STELLAR in other ways (work experience) or have exceptional family/political connections. That's the only logical explanation that makes sense to me since Harvard adcoms are far from naive; they have years and years of collecting data and would know better than other people that GRE is not the same animal as the LSAT. And I would think they would know better than anyone else that the best lawyers are predicted by a comprehensive and holistic formula where it's numbers PLUS excellent work ethic and a great vision combined... So I can only see the pool becoming more competitive in the future, and not necessarily easier because of the GRE option.

Feel free to disagree but this is my initial reaction to this news.

Don't you think it's likely that years of experience has shown admissions that the LSAT is not the greatest tool for admissions decisions. The correlation to law school success is low. Maybe they are tired of applicants who study for hours to get a score instead of those who can do well without months of prep?

My guess is that they are fed up with being forced into this number driven process. It doesnt benefit them in any way.

Also, since the disclosures in the lawsuit and settlement with LSAC about dissbilities I think everyone is fed up with the LSAC private monopoly on admissions. I think LSAC is the worst and incredibly nonresponsive to their clients. So I'm gloating about this slap in the face to them.

I know you guys are joking about the political comment but they have always been able to admit connected people if they chose.

[aptivych]

Here's what I make of it.
Firstly, I have no doubt that this will open up the floodgates. Many schools are likely to follow. Just look how the academia jumped to defend University of Arizona who established a similar GRE policy. And, according to the Washington Post article up today, many schools are on board.

However, the ABA is scheduled this weekend to make a decision on the matter. I speculate that the ABA will come out an allow all schools to use GRE provided they disclose their admission scores.

The LSAC is probably fuming. This may signal the beginning of the end of the LSAT. Unless you're freakishly good on the LSAT, why would you spend time, money and effort on a test that can only gain access to law school, where you can spend similar resources to a test that can get you to nearly every grad school?

Your thoughts?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Whillie. Where did you see that the ABA is scheduled this weekend to decide on this?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/gra ... 3cd64b72e3

It's all in there. I've seen it on ABA website too. The ABA summit is going on now in Santa Monica.

Thanks, this is helpful.

[ImGonnaTakeGRE]

You're definitely going to see an increase in dual degree candidates. That's what happened in business school admissions.

For example, if someone wanted to pursue dual degree w/Harvard Business School, they had to take both LSAT & GMAT. Now they can take just GRE as now both HBS & HLS accepts GRE.

While I think GRE is easier than LSAT, I think people are underestimating the difficulty of the exam. It's adaptive so the questions get harder. For the math sections, someone who is not very good could struggle finishing in the time limit. Plus, it's not the easiest to do critical reading sections on a computer - much harder to annotate and such. Finally, students who don't have a strong vocabulary will struggle

[Npret]

You're definitely going to see an increase in dual degree candidates. That's what happened in business school admissions.

For example, if someone wanted to pursue dual degree w/Harvard Business School, they had to take both LSAT & GMAT. Now they can take just GRE as now both HBS & HLS accepts GRE.

While I think GRE is easier than LSAT, I think people are underestimating the difficulty of the exam. It's adaptive so the questions get harder. For the math sections, someone who is not very good could struggle finishing in the time limit. Plus, it's not the easiest to do critical reading sections on a computer - much harder to annotate and such. Finally, students who don't have a strong vocabulary will struggle

The adaptive part means you cant even see the questions you need to get a high score if you make some errors in easier questions. I don't think the math is hard but reading graphs quickly to answer complex questions can be tricky.
I think the biggest advantage is the elimination of all the test center stress and hassle. Nerves because of the pressure of LSAT testtaking and it only being offered a few times has hurt many people.

[cavalier1138]

...

...

This isn't going to end well, is it?

[grades??]

But the next question is can someone take the gre 15 times until they get a great score and then apply with just that score? I know for many phd programs they do what undergrads do with the sat- take the highest section scores and combine them. So I could take the test 15 times and just get perfect scores on both sections at different times and combine them. That is a norm with gre phd admissions, but certainly not Lsat law school admissions. I wonder how they will deal with this.