Speculation about Schools Following Harvard? Forum

[jbagelboy]

You guys are kind of acting like the LSAT is what qualifies you to be a lawyer. But in fact its the bar and to some degree, law school itself, that qualifies you. The LSAT is just a proxy admissions tool.

[chicagoburger]

You guys are kind of acting like the LSAT is what qualifies you to be a lawyer. But in fact its the bar and to some degree, law school itself, that qualifies you. The LSAT is just a proxy admissions tool.

Tbh, there are a lot of LSAT ho on TLS who worship and brag about their test scores.

[cavalier1138]

You guys are kind of acting like the LSAT is what qualifies you to be a lawyer. But in fact its the bar and to some degree, law school itself, that qualifies you. The LSAT is just a proxy admissions tool.

Well, bar admission is largely determined by a student's innate abilities to learn how to think like a lawyer about certain issues. So yeah, I'd argue that LSAT is probably one of the best measures of whether someone is qualified to be a lawyer, and the statistics support that conclusion.

The LSAT is a proxy admissions tool largely because of that correlation (and the correlation to 1L performance). Schools want to admit students who will pass the bar, and they know that their pedagogy isn't going to be the deciding factor.

[aptivych]

So in theory, if you have a GPA below t14 median, you need to get your ass in school pronto?

What is the t14 median for GPA? 3.8?

[jbagelboy]

You guys are kind of acting like the LSAT is what qualifies you to be a lawyer. But in fact its the bar and to some degree, law school itself, that qualifies you. The LSAT is just a proxy admissions tool.

Well, bar admission is largely determined by a student's innate abilities to learn how to think like a lawyer about certain issues. So yeah, I'd argue that LSAT is probably one of the best measures of whether someone is qualified to be a lawyer, and the statistics support that conclusion.

The LSAT is a proxy admissions tool largely because of that correlation (and the correlation to 1L performance). Schools want to admit students who will pass the bar, and they know that their pedagogy isn't going to be the deciding factor.

The bar will still exist. If there's a weaker correlation between the GRE and the bar, then maybe we'll start seeing lower bar passage rates as more schools accept alternatives (I doubt it, but that's the natural conclusion of your theory). I'm fine with that. If schools aren't producing prepared graduates, they should change or close. The barriers to entry to the profession are just as high. If they start doing away with the bar and the forced curve, then the profession will be truly threatened.

[somedeadman]

So in theory, if you have a GPA below t14 median, you need to get your ass in school pronto?

What is the t14 median for GPA? 3.8?

I think it is, but I didn't want to post it without being certain

[aptivych]

So to summarize everyone's posts here, if you have a uGPA >=3.8, you will benefit from this change given that you can do well on GRE/LSAT, but if you have a uGPA<3.8, doesn't matter if you have a stellar LSAT/GRE score, your chances are greatly diminished. Am I getting this right?

[cdotson2]

Do you guys really think the H admissions team can't screen for candidates just because they start accepting a new test? The world isn't falling apart, it might make competition harder in terms of getting in. However, I highly doubt this will effect the quality of the student body in a negative way.

[lymenheimer]

The bar will still exist. If there's a weaker correlation between the GRE and the bar, then maybe we'll start seeing lower bar passage rates as more schools accept alternatives (I doubt it, but that's the natural conclusion of your theory). I'm fine with that. If schools aren't producing prepared graduates, they should change or close. The barriers to entry to the profession are just as high. If they start doing away with the bar and the forced curve, then the profession will be truly threatened.

My point was only that if we make the entry test the general grad school entry test. More people will decide they might want to do law. I highly doubt a significant portion of those students would fail the bar, especially after spending 3 years in a professional school. Point being, the LSAT is the first barrier to entry - not in the fact that it prevents people from getting into law school or passing the bar, but it limits the number of students based on some actual interest in going to law school.

[Rex_Racer_Jr]

The bar will still exist. If there's a weaker correlation between the GRE and the bar, then maybe we'll start seeing lower bar passage rates as more schools accept alternatives (I doubt it, but that's the natural conclusion of your theory). I'm fine with that. If schools aren't producing prepared graduates, they should change or close. The barriers to entry to the profession are just as high. If they start doing away with the bar and the forced curve, then the profession will be truly threatened.

My point was only that if we make the entry test the general grad school entry test. More people will decide they might want to do law. I highly doubt a significant portion of those students would fail the bar, especially after spending 3 years in a professional school. Point being, the LSAT is the first barrier to entry - not in the fact that it prevents people from getting into law school or passing the bar, but it limits the number of students based on some actual interest in going to law school.

Say I'm a future MPP student with a killer GRE score, eh why not gamble $100 and live the HLS dream. There are many people with 3.0/160 scores that are already gambling a hundred bucks for a shot at H. They will not lower the standard of admissions. They know the differences between GRE/LSAT. Chill.

This is why HLS will allow GRE.

Stanford Law School is more difficult to get in: (10.7% vs. 16.6% acceptance rate).

GRE will result in more applicants. The class size is expected to remain the same. SOOOOOO, it's easy to see that the acceptance rate will fall. Are there qualified GRE only applicants? Yes, and they're probably already in HKS or similar caliber schools.

[lymenheimer]

The bar will still exist. If there's a weaker correlation between the GRE and the bar, then maybe we'll start seeing lower bar passage rates as more schools accept alternatives (I doubt it, but that's the natural conclusion of your theory). I'm fine with that. If schools aren't producing prepared graduates, they should change or close. The barriers to entry to the profession are just as high. If they start doing away with the bar and the forced curve, then the profession will be truly threatened.

My point was only that if we make the entry test the general grad school entry test. More people will decide they might want to do law. I highly doubt a significant portion of those students would fail the bar, especially after spending 3 years in a professional school. Point being, the LSAT is the first barrier to entry - not in the fact that it prevents people from getting into law school or passing the bar, but it limits the number of students based on some actual interest in going to law school.

Say I'm a future MPP student with a killer GRE score, eh why not gamble $100 and live the HLS dream. There are many people with 3.0/160 scores that are already gambling a hundred bucks for a shot at H. They will not lower the standard of admissions. They know the differences between GRE/LSAT. Chill.

This is why HLS will allow GRE.

Stanford Law School is more difficult to get in: (10.7% vs. 16.6% acceptance rate).

GRE will result in more applicants. The class size is expected to remain the same. SOOOOOO, it's easy to see that the acceptance rate will fall. Are there qualified GRE only applicants? Yes, and they're probably already in HKS or similar caliber schools.

Thank you for your nonresponse.

[Rex_Racer_Jr]

I didn't mean to offend you, and I apologize if I did.

We're all just posting what we think. No need to try to put others down.

[Learned Throw Hands]

Do you guys really think the H admissions team can't screen for candidates just because they start accepting a new test? The world isn't falling apart, it might make competition harder in terms of getting in. However, I highly doubt this will effect the quality of the student body in a negative way.

When other schools adopt the GRE as a stand in the pool of bright and capable applicants will just get mixed in with the diarrhea applicants that took the GRE. Unless the ABA lifts bar exam pass standards all of these people will just flood a market that was just starting to look like it corrected itself. That's my worry.

[lymenheimer]

I didn't mean to offend you, and I apologize if I did.

We're all just posting what we think. No need to try to put others down.

You didn't offend me. Your comments had nothing to do with my post, though. Pointing out that your comment was nonresponsive is not putting you down. It's highlighting the fact that your comments had nothing to do with my post. I have no regard for the quality of applicant, student, etc. my concern is regarding the potential for an increase in the oversaturation of the legal market.
Basically what Learned said above, which is also pretty much what I have said previously.

[Rex_Racer_Jr]

You didn't offend me. Your comments had nothing to do with my post, though. Pointing out that your comment was nonresponsive is not putting you down. It's highlighting the fact that your comments had nothing to do with my post. I have no regard for the quality of applicant, student, etc. my concern is regarding the potential for an increase in the oversaturation of the legal market.
Basically what Learned said above, which is also pretty much what I have said previously.

Well, thanks for this new response. To me, your first one came off as mocking and this one clears things up. I feel that it should have been your original response to mine.


I believe you said

Point being, the LSAT is the first barrier to entry - not in the fact that it prevents people from getting into law school or passing the bar, but it limits the number of students based on some actual interest in going to law school.

I agree with you here. I was illustrating a type of student who would apply if the LSAT was removed as a barrier to applying. I then went off and made other points. I guess I should have quoted more precisely or made two separate posts.

[Npret]

Do you guys really think the H admissions team can't screen for candidates just because they start accepting a new test? The world isn't falling apart, it might make competition harder in terms of getting in. However, I highly doubt this will effect the quality of the student body in a negative way.

When other schools adopt the GRE as a stand in the pool of bright and capable applicants will just get mixed in with the diarrhea applicants that took the GRE. Unless the ABA lifts bar exam pass standards all of these people will just flood a market that was just starting to look like it corrected itself. That's my worry.

Why are you guys so convinced that the LSAT is a better predictor of law school success or quality of student?
Doing well on the LSAT just shows you are good at the LSAT. Why is everyone so attached to this exam? You guys are assuming that the quality of student will drop and I don't see any reason to assume that will happen.

Obviously Harvard is seeing an issue in admissions they are trying to address. I actually doubt that they want to review hundreds more applications. I don't think they are at all concerned about the number of applicants or their yield.

I think I'm missing what everyone is freaking out about? Is everyone's ego attached to their LSAT score?

[chrysippusofsoli]

Why are you guys so convinced that the LSAT is a better predictor of law school success or quality of student?
Doing well on the LSAT just shows you are good at the LSAT. Why is everyone so attached to this exam? You guys are assuming that the quality of student will drop and I don't see any reason to assume that will happen.

Obviously Harvard is seeing an issue in admissions they are trying to address. I actually doubt that they want to review hundreds more applications. I don't think they are at all concerned about the number of applicants or their yield.

I think I'm missing what everyone is freaking out about? Is everyone's ego attached to their LSAT score?

+1. Also, the belief that the LSAT is a thoroughly effective indicator of who can succeed in law school and who can't seems somewhat incompatible (or at least in tension) with the belief that the LSAT is very learnable. If the LSAT is so learnable, then how does it pick out those who can succeed in law school? By virtue of their determination in studying for the LSAT?

[AJordan]

Why are you guys so convinced that the LSAT is a better predictor of law school success or quality of student?
Doing well on the LSAT just shows you are good at the LSAT. Why is everyone so attached to this exam? You guys are assuming that the quality of student will drop and I don't see any reason to assume that will happen.

Obviously Harvard is seeing an issue in admissions they are trying to address. I actually doubt that they want to review hundreds more applications. I don't think they are at all concerned about the number of applicants or their yield.

I think I'm missing what everyone is freaking out about? Is everyone's ego attached to their LSAT score?

+1. Also, the belief that the LSAT is a thoroughly effective indicator of who can succeed in law school and who can't seems somewhat incompatible (or at least in tension) with the belief that the LSAT is very learnable. If the LSAT is so learnable, then how does it pick out those who can succeed in law school? By virtue of their determination in studying for the LSAT?

So are badminton, Cantonese, and Super Mario Bros 3. Doesn't mean everyone is equally good at them even after lots of work.

[Joined4Knowledge]

I'm wondering whether you all think there's a chance that other schools in the T14 are going to follow Harvard and start allowing the GRE during the 2017-2018 admission cycle. If a school was planning on implementing that policy, by when do you think they would announce it? Do you think we are just going to have to wait until application open in August/September to find if the T14 is going full-GRE?

And do people know if the GRE is easier than the LSAT, and, assuming more schools adopt the GRE, which route should applicants take?

[Npret]

Why are you guys so convinced that the LSAT is a better predictor of law school success or quality of student?
Doing well on the LSAT just shows you are good at the LSAT. Why is everyone so attached to this exam? You guys are assuming that the quality of student will drop and I don't see any reason to assume that will happen.

Obviously Harvard is seeing an issue in admissions they are trying to address. I actually doubt that they want to review hundreds more applications. I don't think they are at all concerned about the number of applicants or their yield.

I think I'm missing what everyone is freaking out about? Is everyone's ego attached to their LSAT score?

+1. Also, the belief that the LSAT is a thoroughly effective indicator of who can succeed in law school and who can't seems somewhat incompatible (or at least in tension) with the belief that the LSAT is very learnable. If the LSAT is so learnable, then how does it pick out those who can succeed in law school? By virtue of their determination in studying for the LSAT?

So are badminton, Cantonese, and Super Mario Bros 3. Doesn't mean everyone is equally good at them even after lots of work.

No one has shown that the GRE won't predict law school success at least as well or better than LSAT or LSAT plus GPA. I haven't seen the correlation of GPA alone.
LSAT alone is a weak predictor with a wide range of correlation. I don't know why the GRE would be worse

http://www.lsac.org/jd/lsat/your-score/ ... erformance

[A. Nony Mouse]

Well, bar admission is largely determined by a student's innate abilities to learn how to think like a lawyer about certain issues. So yeah, I'd argue that LSAT is probably one of the best measures of whether someone is qualified to be a lawyer.

You (and others in this thread) are conflating good law school grades and passing the bar with ability to be a lawyer. Neither of those things is strictly true.

[future liT1g4tor]

Well, bar admission is largely determined by a student's innate abilities to learn how to think like a lawyer about certain issues. So yeah, I'd argue that LSAT is probably one of the best measures of whether someone is qualified to be a lawyer.

You (and others in this thread) are conflating good law school grades and passing the bar with ability to be a lawyer. Neither of those things is strictly true.

[cavalier1138]

Well, bar admission is largely determined by a student's innate abilities to learn how to think like a lawyer about certain issues. So yeah, I'd argue that LSAT is probably one of the best measures of whether someone is qualified to be a lawyer.

You (and others in this thread) are conflating good law school grades and passing the bar with ability to be a lawyer. Neither of those things is strictly true.

Well, bar passage is specifically what gives someone the ability to be a lawyer, so I don't think that's a problem.

If you're saying that I'm conflating passing the bar and getting good grades with being a good lawyer, then I never said that. Maybe someone else did.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Well, bar admission is largely determined by a student's innate abilities to learn how to think like a lawyer about certain issues. So yeah, I'd argue that LSAT is probably one of the best measures of whether someone is qualified to be a lawyer.

You (and others in this thread) are conflating good law school grades and passing the bar with ability to be a lawyer. Neither of those things is strictly true.

Well, bar passage is specifically what gives someone the ability to be a lawyer, so I don't think that's a problem.

If you're saying that I'm conflating passing the bar and getting good grades with being a good lawyer, then I never said that. Maybe someone else did.

I read "qualified" as about ability (meaning skill/effectiveness), not entrance to the profession, since you referenced learning how to think like a lawyer, not getting a job.

And really, high scorers on the GRE are more than capable of succeeding in law school and passing the bar.

[lawlorbust]

Do you guys really think the H admissions team can't screen for candidates just because they start accepting a new test? The world isn't falling apart, it might make competition harder in terms of getting in. However, I highly doubt this will effect the quality of the student body in a negative way.

When other schools adopt the GRE as a stand in the pool of bright and capable applicants will just get mixed in with the diarrhea applicants that took the GRE. Unless the ABA lifts bar exam pass standards all of these people will just flood a market that was just starting to look like it corrected itself. That's my worry.

Why are you guys so convinced that the LSAT is a better predictor of law school success or quality of student?
Doing well on the LSAT just shows you are good at the LSAT. Why is everyone so attached to this exam? You guys are assuming that the quality of student will drop and I don't see any reason to assume that will happen.

Obviously Harvard is seeing an issue in admissions they are trying to address. I actually doubt that they want to review hundreds more applications. I don't think they are at all concerned about the number of applicants or their yield.

I think I'm missing what everyone is freaking out about? Is everyone's ego attached to their LSAT score?

Nailed the hammer on the head. It's just a bunch of butthurt posters who think they'd do less well under the new regime and have thus suddenly found god in the LSAT.