Npret wrote:dj9i27 wrote:Npret wrote:dm1683 wrote: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 if 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.
The LSAT has its problems, but acts to level out factors like GPA inflation/deflation, fancy (expensive) internships, private schools, etc. Doesn't seem like the GRE will do this as successfully. The LSAT also indicates genuine interest in law school, for whatever that's worth. It's also not too much fun to have the test you put 5+ months of your life into studying be (potentially) invalidated. That's why people aren't enthused.