Top Law Schools

14. Application Requirements

[...]

"*If you are applying for the JD/MBA Program, you have the option of submitting a GMAT score instead of an LSAT score. If you choose the GMAT option, we will obtain it from the Darden School of Business admissions office. If you are admitted to the JD/MBA Program with a GMAT score instead of an LSAT score, you will be participating in a program designed to evaluate whether GMAT scores are valid and reliable measurements for potential to succeed in Law School. In the event you may seek to transfer to another law school, you may need an LSAT score in order to be considered for transfer admission."

Well that's new. You probably need to be competitive for B-school admissions though, which most kids who ED UVA are not.

Does Northwestern still offer the same option for JD/MBA applicants ?

Just an observation: looking for "loopholes" or "shortcuts" or "the easy way out" is NOT a good ingredient for success in life. People who do so tend to end up being the ones in their 30s and 40s going to those "loser hotel seminars" on how to get rich quick, etc.

Hope this doesn't mean a higher GMAT score is more valuable than a higher LSAT score

Noooo, our value is diminishing! Damn you, UVA. I hope this program fails.

BostonLawStudent wrote:Just an observation: looking for "loopholes" or "shortcuts" or "the easy way out" is NOT a good ingredient for success in life. People who do so tend to end up being the ones in their 30s and 40s going to those "loser hotel seminars" on how to get rich quick, etc.

Lol. Alt?

CanadianWolf wrote:Does Northwestern still offer the same option for JD/MBA applicants ?

Yes, the LSAT score is only required if you want to be rolled into the law admissions if you get denied from the JD/MBA process

sinfiery wrote:Hope this doesn't mean a higher GMAT score is more valuable than a higher LSAT score

Noooo, our value is diminishing! Damn you, UVA. I hope this program fails.

No sinf, I don't think it diminishes the LSAT. B-schools care a lot more about work experience. Most law school applicants would be auto-ding from JD/MBA because of lack of meaningful work experience.

Edit: plus the number of people in those programs is super small. I don't know about UVA, but Northwestern only has like 20 people in the JD/MBA. That's less than 10% of their JD class.

I have no respect for a JD program that doesn't require an LSAT. But who cares what I think.

HawkeyeGirl wrote:

sinfiery wrote:Hope this doesn't mean a higher GMAT score is more valuable than a higher LSAT score

Noooo, our value is diminishing! Damn you, UVA. I hope this program fails.

No sinf, I don't think it diminishes the LSAT. B-schools care a lot more about work experience. Most law school applicants would be auto-ding from JD/MBA because of lack of meaningful work experience.

Edit: plus the number of people in those programs is super small. I don't know about UVA, but Northwestern only has like 20 people in the JD/MBA. That's less than 10% of their JD class.

Yeah but most LS don't really care at all about WE.

So the GMAT becomes almost as meaningful in applications to the JD program admissions part of the MBA/JD admissions process as the LSAT. Which definitely diminishes the value of the LSAT because the LSAT doesn't do the same in regards to replacing the GMAT for MBA admissions. And that doesn't even take into account the GMAT is weighted a lot less in applications for B-schools then the LSAT is for LSs.


The small class size may not make it a big deal, but it still sends a message.

sinfiery wrote:

HawkeyeGirl wrote:

sinfiery wrote:Hope this doesn't mean a higher GMAT score is more valuable than a higher LSAT score

Noooo, our value is diminishing! Damn you, UVA. I hope this program fails.

No sinf, I don't think it diminishes the LSAT. B-schools care a lot more about work experience. Most law school applicants would be auto-ding from JD/MBA because of lack of meaningful work experience.

Edit: plus the number of people in those programs is super small. I don't know about UVA, but Northwestern only has like 20 people in the JD/MBA. That's less than 10% of their JD class.

Yeah but most LS don't really care at all about WE.

So the GMAT becomes almost as meaningful in applications to the JD program admissions part of the MBA/JD admissions process as the LSAT. Which definitely diminishes the value of the LSAT because the LSAT doesn't do the same in regards to replacing the GMAT for MBA admissions. And that doesn't even take into account the GMAT is weighted a lot less in applications for B-schools then the LSAT is for LSs.


The small class size may not make it a big deal, but it still sends a message.

I guess I think doing something significant and meaningful in the working world says a lot more about a person than how they perform on a fairly arbitrary test that is easily learnable...It's not the same admissions folks anyway, so I'm not sure why it's upsetting. At least at NU, the Kellogg people do the admissions. Not sure about UVA. Last I'll say about this, I don't want to get into an internet fight

HawkeyeGirl wrote:

sinfiery wrote:

HawkeyeGirl wrote:

sinfiery wrote:Hope this doesn't mean a higher GMAT score is more valuable than a higher LSAT score

Noooo, our value is diminishing! Damn you, UVA. I hope this program fails.

No sinf, I don't think it diminishes the LSAT. B-schools care a lot more about work experience. Most law school applicants would be auto-ding from JD/MBA because of lack of meaningful work experience.

Edit: plus the number of people in those programs is super small. I don't know about UVA, but Northwestern only has like 20 people in the JD/MBA. That's less than 10% of their JD class.

Yeah but most LS don't really care at all about WE.

So the GMAT becomes almost as meaningful in applications to the JD program admissions part of the MBA/JD admissions process as the LSAT. Which definitely diminishes the value of the LSAT because the LSAT doesn't do the same in regards to replacing the GMAT for MBA admissions. And that doesn't even take into account the GMAT is weighted a lot less in applications for B-schools then the LSAT is for LSs.


The small class size may not make it a big deal, but it still sends a message.

I guess I think doing something significant and meaningful in the working world says a lot more about a person than how they perform on a fairly arbitrary test that is easily learnable...It's not the same admissions folks anyway, so I'm not sure why it's upsetting. At least at NU, the Kellogg people do the admissions. Not sure about UVA. Last I'll say about this, I don't want to get into an internet fight

Have u people not heard of Google? The factually incorrect statements in this single thread are so numerous, but here are a few:
A) NU Kellogg DOES NOT require the GMAT, so terrible example.

In reality though, If you have the GMAT and softs to get into Wharton or Kellogg, you're probably intellectually capable enough to study and score well on the LSAT and a good enough candidate on paper to be an admit to the LS school.

TheThriller wrote:In reality though, If you have the GMAT and softs to get into Wharton or Kellogg, you're probably intellectually capable enough to study and score well on the LSAT and a good enough candidate on paper to be an admit to the LS school.

So when did we concede MBA>JD

because I watched suits and that clearly isn't the case on there

TheThriller wrote:In reality though, If you have the GMAT and softs to get into Wharton or Kellogg, you're probably intellectually capable enough to study and score well on the LSAT and a good enough candidate on paper to be an admit to the LS school.

I can think of a 100,000 counter examples among my friends.

ajr wrote:

TheThriller wrote:In reality though, If you have the GMAT and softs to get into Wharton or Kellogg, you're probably intellectually capable enough to study and score well on the LSAT and a good enough candidate on paper to be an admit to the LS school.

I can think of a 100,000 counter examples among my friends.

damn, you popular

@BostonLawStudent: I think that you misunderstand the point about NU Kellogg's JD/MBA admission requirement of only the GMAT. NU Kellogg does require the GMAT. One can be admitted to the joint JD/MBA program at NU by applying only with a GMAT score rather than with both GMAT & LSAT scores. Northwestern law students admitted to the law school in the traditional fashion with an LSAT score are permitted to take some courses in the Kellogg business school.

ajr wrote:I have no respect for a JD program that doesn't require an LSAT. But who cares what I think.

...only on TLS is the LSAT more important than actual education quality (profs, opportunities, etc.). Only on TLS.

abcde12345 wrote:

ajr wrote:I have no respect for a JD program that doesn't require an LSAT. But who cares what I think.

...only on TLS is the LSAT more important than actual education quality (profs, opportunities, etc.). Only on TLS.

If you think what sets one top 20 school apart from another top 20 school is the "quality of education," let me guess - you are a 0L right? If you think it's opportunities or the student quality - that's partially right, but it's a result of being ranked that way, not the cause.

Interesting: Darden School of Business has nothing to do with Red Lobster.

alwayssunnyinfl wrote:Interesting: Darden School of Business has nothing to do with Red Lobster.

I guess I shouldn't have put so much effort into praising those biscuits in my PS, damnit.

Ruxin1 wrote:

alwayssunnyinfl wrote:Interesting: Darden School of Business has nothing to do with Red Lobster.

I guess I shouldn't have put so much effort into praising those biscuits in my PS, damnit.

Maybe you meant to be praising them cereal boxes in your NU PS...

ajr wrote:If you think what sets one top 20 school apart from another top 20 school is the "quality of education," let me guess - you are a 0L right? If you think it's opportunities or the student quality - that's partially right, but it's a result of being ranked that way, not the cause.

If you have no respect for a JD prog that doesn't require an LSAT, then (if OP is correct) you have no respect for UVA. Let me guess -- hyperbole.

Also, you misunderstood my comment. I'm not talking about rank, which is relative, at all. I'm talking about absolute education quality, which requires no comparison b/w T14 (is T20 now a thing?). My point is actually less dependent on rank than yours: my point is that REGARDLESS of LSAT (a huge rank-determiner), you can, if you are capable and willing, get a good legal education at many schools. So having no respect for a school that does not require LSAT (in this case, UVA), makes little sense.

I take it you mean that many bad schools do not require LSAT, and you have no respect for those schools. I agree, not because these schools don't require LSAT, but because these schools are bad in the first place, and eliminate the requirement in order to get more students. You probably respect UVA (at least, you would be foolish not to), so I'm not trying to force you into a claim you probably don't mean to make. I'm just pointing out that, on TLS, we are so caught up in the means for getting into law school (LSAT, etc.) that we begin to think these are actually ends that have a significant impact on what kind of education we will, after 3 years, get.

TheThriller wrote:In reality though, If you have the GMAT and softs to get into Wharton or Kellogg, you're probably intellectually capable enough to study and score well on the LSAT and a good enough candidate on paper to be an admit to the LS school.

I don't agree, yet I don't disagree. It's a different skill set.
Being very smart is all well and good, but there are different kinds of smarts (and yes, there often is a lot of overlap). Linguistic skills are different from logic which is separate from numeracy.

On a whole, stupid people aren't getting into either school, but not everyone getting in is a super-genius either. Even then, someone who is absolutely brilliant at linguistics might not be a mathematical genius, etc.