Top Law Schools

The ABA is considering dropping the LSAT requirement for law school admissions. Apparently the change might result in many schools dropping the requirement:

An American Bar Association panel reviewing law school accreditation rules is leaning toward recommending an end to a requirement that law schools use the Law School Admissions Test. If the panel follows through on its current inclinations -- and the ABA approves the changes -- law schools could gain flexibility they now lack to make the LSAT optional or drop the test. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011 ... s_use_lsat

I was wondering how TLS folks would feel about that.

Even if the ABA dropped it, it wouldn't make a difference to anyone unless US News dropped it.

Even then, only crappy schools would drop it (bc it doesn't matter) and maybe HYS (just to be different).

Totally new news that has never been talked about on here before.

Only TTTTs would actually drop the requirement. Top schools would still use the LSAT as a tool to make standardized comparisons between apps. Which is great because then the hordes of 4.0 pre-law, criminal justice, basket weaving majors wont have that 130 LSAT preventing them from going to Cooley.

This news would be more relevant if Bob Morse at US News was contemplating dropping LSAT scores from the ranking formula.

Aberzombie1892 wrote:Even if the ABA dropped it, it wouldn't make a difference to anyone unless US News dropped it.

Even then, only crappy schools would drop it (bc it doesn't matter) and maybe HYS (just to be different).

Actually, of all the top schools, I'm willing to bet $$$$ that Boalt would be the most likely to drop the LSAT.

Why should they? If they did, what would they judge you on -- GPA only? Or would they take softs into account much more? And how would you quantify softs? I think it'd be a mess.

buckilaw wrote:

Aberzombie1892 wrote:Even if the ABA dropped it, it wouldn't make a difference to anyone unless US News dropped it.

Even then, only crappy schools would drop it (bc it doesn't matter) and maybe HYS (just to be different).

Actually, of all the top schools, I'm willing to bet $$$$ that Boalt would be the most likely to drop the LSAT.

Doesn't Northwestern also accept the GMAT?

LSAT is the only objective measure they have. GPA is fucking bullshit. 4.0 in interpretive dance beats out a 3.9 in fucking quantum physics, so we know GPA is a worthless fucking indicator. Softs, so many people have them, they cancel out, except for ridiculous ones, and those people already are going to Yale/Stanford, which take probably all the people with real softs anyways.

cinephile wrote:Why should they? If they did, what would they judge you on -- GPA only? Or would they take softs into account much more? And how would you quantify softs? I think it'd be a mess.

I think without the LSAT where you went to UG would become much more important. So if you want to be a lawyer better know by 14 so you can keep that 4.0 through high school and go to HYP! otherwise enjoy Cooley.

Sentry wrote:

cinephile wrote:Why should they? If they did, what would they judge you on -- GPA only? Or would they take softs into account much more? And how would you quantify softs? I think it'd be a mess.

I think without the LSAT where you went to UG would become much more important. So if you want to be a lawyer better know by 14 so you can keep that 4.0 through high school and go to HYP! otherwise enjoy Cooley.

Would not hurt my feelings one iota...it is truly sad when a three-digit test score and a UGPA from ~25 years ago are given more weight than roughly 25 years of real-world experience in the legal realm.

Well to be honest it would help me a lot .. I have the standing of a tenured law professor in my own country I can't get into law school in Canada for this Bssat..

I am going to go out on a limb and say that the average LSAT score of everybody that said it should be optional is lower than the average LSAT of those who said it should be mandatory. Probably something like high 160s vs low 160s

gbpackerbacker wrote:I am going to go out on a limb be reasonable and say that the average LSAT score of everybody that said it should be optional is lower than the average LSAT of those who said it should be mandatory. Probably something like high 160s vs low 160s

FTFY.

Splitters are scaaaaared.

the best schools usually require the most standardized testing. to think it would be different for law schools is misguided

Hey bro, this was a nice thread when I started it 3 weeks ago: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 0&t=144500

KTHANXBAI

How many times do we have to go through this.

I am going to go out on a limb and say that the average LSAT score of everybody that said it should be optional is lower than the average LSAT of those who said it should be mandatory. Probably something like high 160s vs low 160s

I was thinking the same thing.

Set a minimum standard for LSAT GPA. Then make admissions random. Most schools have more qualified applicants than they can take. I'm not sure they can fairly determine who is "most" qualified.

Curry wrote:How many times do we have to go through this.

At least 4 times per cycle.

LS admissions should be structured more like an academic and legal skill decathlon - a vigorous competition amongst peers, if you will. Think Billy Madison.

Yes, between December 27th and 30th there will be a four day law school trial event for all the potential law students in the nation, probably in some place like New Mexico. Students must compete against each other in standardized events that test a complete gamut of skills necessary for success as a lawyer. Law schools can send representatives to the event to scout out talent.

8ballistic wrote:Yes, between December 27th and 30th there will be a four day law school trial event for all the potential law students in the nation, probably in some place like New Mexico. Students must compete against each other in standardized events that test a complete gamut of skills necessary for success as a lawyer. Law schools can send representatives to the event to scout out talent.

+1 I'd wear pinstripes.

I will always and forever look down upon those claiming to be lawyers who have not taken the LSAT. Its like trying to join a frat without rushing.

without mandatory LSATS, schools can use this to game the system. Only people with higher LSATS are reported, because the lower scores don't report. Thus, schools that do not require the LSAT have a higher average LSAT (because they still accept them)