SOLELY GRE for HLS with no LSAT

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
Future Ex-Engineer
Posts: 1430
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: SOLELY GRE for HLS with no LSAT

Postby Future Ex-Engineer » Fri Jul 21, 2017 10:14 am

Slippin' Jimmy wrote:I went to school full time while working 25-30 hours a week while studying, plus I'm dead broke. I probably spent a total of $300 on test materials, and realistically I could have spent about half of that if I were more frugal/smarter about what I purchased. Despite only doing about 4 hours a day, I still was able to crack the 98th percentile after 5 months of studying. You aren't having trouble because you are poor, its because you don't want to put in the work required to do well on the LSAT and are looking for an easy way out. Hopefully Harvard works out for you, because if the one school you will be able to apply to dings you, you'll be shit out of luck.


DAMN JIMMY THAT DUDE HAD A FAMILY

silenttimer
Posts: 146
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 11:13 am

Re: SOLELY GRE for HLS with no LSAT

Postby silenttimer » Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:11 am

Having taken both, I can positively say that the GRE is much easier. I studied for the GRE for 2 weeks and got a high enough score to get into a graduate program at an ivy league school (90th+ percentile). On the other hand, I studied for the LSAT for several months in order to crack into a similar percentile.

Although I will note that, when I took the GRE over 10 years ago, even a perfect score on the quant section (800) would net you only the 93rd percentile (probably due to the stem folks having to take the same test as non stem folks). On the other hand, 600+ would get you into the 90th percentile on verbal. Writing was easy.

User avatar
Future Ex-Engineer
Posts: 1430
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: SOLELY GRE for HLS with no LSAT

Postby Future Ex-Engineer » Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:14 am

silenttimer wrote:Having taken both, I can positively say that the GRE is much easier. I studied for the GRE for 2 weeks and got a high enough score to get into a graduate program at an ivy league school (90th+ percentile). On the other hand, I studied for the LSAT for several months in order to crack into a similar percentile.

Although I will note that, when I took the GRE over 10 years ago, even a perfect score on the quant section (800) would net you only the 93rd percentile (probably due to the stem folks having to take the same test as non stem folks). On the other hand, 600+ would get you into the 90th percentile on verbal. Writing was easy.


Yeah, it's blatantly obvious that the GRE is much easier than the LSAT. I had a similar encounter - both scores about 93rd percentile with no studying on the GRE (good enough to get me 90% scholarship for my master's). Took me about 200 hours of study to get into 98th percentile LSAT

etramak
Posts: 383
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 11:58 am

Re: SOLELY GRE for HLS with no LSAT

Postby etramak » Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:37 pm

TheKingLives wrote:
cavalier1138 wrote:
TheKingLives wrote:Shorter time to study for = more fair.


Maybe just call it what it is and say that it's easier. There's no point pretending that you're acting out of an unyielding desire for justice in admissions.

As someone who comes from a poor background and worked as an admissions ambassador at my undergraduate institution, I absolutely care about a fair admissions process, and in my opinion that means opening up the number of standardized tests available for applicants to take. Don't make assumptions about others based on what is true for yourself.


IMHO LSAT is a lot more friendly to students from underprivileged backgrounds. GRE vocab uses words most poor kids never come into contact with, while LSAT will define any moderately difficult word that appears in RC.

User avatar
TheKingLives
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2015 8:37 am

Re: SOLELY GRE for HLS with no LSAT

Postby TheKingLives » Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:45 pm

Slippin' Jimmy wrote:
TheKingLives wrote:
kingpin101 wrote:
TheKingLives wrote:
cavalier1138 wrote:
TheKingLives wrote:Shorter time to study for = more fair.


Maybe just call it what it is and say that it's easier. There's no point pretending that you're acting out of an unyielding desire for justice in admissions.

As someone who comes from a poor background and worked as an admissions ambassador at my undergraduate institution, I absolutely care about a fair admissions process, and in my opinion that means opening up the number of standardized tests available for applicants to take. Don't make assumptions about others based on what is true for yourself.

This doesn't explain at all making a test hard unfairly affects poor people, but okay...

The LSAT is an exam that few people can do well on without studying. The money and time needed to do well on both can be high, and poor students who are working to support themselves may not have the resources to devote to 6+ months of LSAT prep. Not rocket science.

I went to school full time while working 25-30 hours a week while studying, plus I'm dead broke. I probably spent a total of $300 on test materials, and realistically I could have spent about half of that if I were more frugal/smarter about what I purchased. Despite only doing about 4 hours a day, I still was able to crack the 98th percentile after 5 months of studying. You aren't having trouble because you are poor, its because you don't want to put in the work required to do well on the LSAT and are looking for an easy way out. Hopefully Harvard works out for you, because if the one school you will be able to apply to dings you, you'll be shit out of luck.

You do realize there are, gasp, other cycles afterward, right?


cavalier1138
Posts: 4305
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: SOLELY GRE for HLS with no LSAT

Postby cavalier1138 » Sat Jul 22, 2017 9:32 am



This is, again, an ancient debate that neither of these articles really addresses with any sophistication. They make "common sense" arguments without presenting a shred of evidence that test prep classes are necessary for a high score (they aren't) or that they always lead to a high score (they don't). If you look at the LSAT prep forums on this site, you'll find plenty of people preparing without private tutors or classes. The internet is the great equalizer for this kind of thing.

"But," you might object, "what about all the data showing that lower-class students are still underrepresented in law school?" That doesn't show that the LSAT is an inherently biased test because of late-game access to test prep. It's much more likely that this is a result of systemic inequity from day one: students' access to different educational opportunities varies with family income. Class mobility in the US is largely a myth, and that has nothing to do with whether someone can afford a one-time expense for a test prep course.

Short version: you want to take the GRE? Go for it. Just stop being so damn self-righteous about it.

edcat
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 11:17 am

Re: SOLELY GRE for HLS with no LSAT

Postby edcat » Mon Aug 07, 2017 1:59 am




Of course the LSAT advantages the rich. Everything does. They have more resources to prep, more free time to prep in, and more access to people who know the LSAT is learnable.

That said, GPA definitely advantages the rich by more. Having less time to study because you are working a full time job while in school definitely hurts your GPA. So does being less likely to aim for grad school from the start of undergrad.

Prestige of institution advantages the rich yet more. Who do you think can pay for an Ivy League education protected from real grades by grade inflation without a big scholarship? How many poor kids even apply to one?

And if you think quality of work experience is somehow not beneficial to the rich with family ties to good jobs, you are kidding yourself.

So maybe it's the GRE that is so meritocratic. I'm sure the people who have been educated in private school or the richer school districts don't have any advantage on a test over the material that they were educated on.

Even in the laughable case that this were true and the GRE were more meritocratic, it is going to be pretty hard for a student to elevate him or herself past the other categories where he or she is disadvantaged by taking the GRE which can't provide any meaningful separation for top scorers.

So the GRE can help you get into Harvard if you already have a high GPA either as the result of advantages you were born to or because you beat the odds to get it. If you beat the odds and got a high GPA from a low income household you probably already can get a job that covers your expenses for however long you need to study for the LSAT anyway. On the other hand, if you want into Harvard without a great GPA possibly because you were working a full time job during college, good luck getting in with the GRE. It literally cannot distinguish you or give you an advantage over other applicants.

I'm not saying this because I'm bitter. My parents are highly educated, albeit not wealthy, and both in highschool and in college my highest priority was therefore always my studies.

I'm saying this because the LSAT is the most meritocratic part of Law School admissions. You know what score range you need to get into good schools. Depending on your natural talent at reading and reasoning it takes time intensively studying to reach that goal. If you are poor you may have less support and the goal may take an extra cycle to reach since you have to work more hours while studying. But the work has to be done. No prep class can ultimately change that. So if you are rich, privileged, and have been handed everything your whole life, it will take you nearly as many hours of study to reach your goal as a poorer person of equal ability who is already used to working hard.

If you want argue that the LSAT is a bad test of ability to be a lawyer. After all, they deliberately made a test for law school admissions which apparently is no better than the GRE at predicting law school success. But, don't pretend that the LSAT is being replaced by the GRE because it advantages the rich, when in fact the LSAT has been the best path most non-privledged people had into a place like Harvard Law.

If the GRE replaces the LSAT the best advantage the poor will be able to get is having an authentic personal statement about overcoming the slightly more insurmountable odds against them instead of the rich applicant's one about a purchased study abroad "helping" the destitute, poor, and disenfranchised.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Keilz, orangeparka and 5 guests