Abysmal GRE Verbal Diagnostic Score? Forum

[Libra]

So I took a diagnostic GRE Verbal portion of a practice test (from the McGraw-Hill 2019 book) and scored a 151(according to their score conversion chart). I personally found this to be pretty bad. However, I'm not sure if this is as bad as I think it is, considering I haven't done any studying at all for the exam (yet). Here's some other background information about me that could bolster my case for an acceptance with such a low verbal score (IF it's 151 on the real thing):

A) I'm in my mid-30s applying to law school.

B) I have a 3.97 undergrad GPA in a medical field. I graduated in the mid-2000s. From what I've been reading, science grads are underrepresented in law, so I see this as a big advantage for me (more so than philosophy/humanities/sociology majors), along with the high GPA.

C) I have an ABA-approved paralegal certificate (completed in 2014). 3.97 GPA in that, too (oddly enough), so I definitely haven't lost my academic potential. I'm academically consistent. No work experience, however, as a paralegal, and my health care employment has been spotty due to drastic licensing changes that forced me out of the profession. The one regret I have from the paralegal program is not doing an internship, which was offered. That would have likely led to a job. Without the internship, I had tremendous problems trying to get a paralegal job because of the uber-saturated legal job market (this was in San Francisco, perhaps the most saturated legal market in the country) and the fact that so many jobs required experience. So I was faced with the classic dilemma of "need a job to get experience/need experience to get a job". When all the jobs I saw required experience, this was a big problem and I ultimately moved out of San Francisco.

D) I have work experience in health care and running my own business in a spiritually based career doing counseling.

E) I did some volunteer health care activities when I was in college, and I am currently volunteering to assist the homeless.

As for the GRE, I took it back in 2006 with the old format. I scored a 1320 out of 1600 with a 5.5 Analytical Writing score. Now I know that my score is way too old, and no school will take a glance at that. Since then, the new GRE is way, way more difficult (especially with multiple answers where no partial credit is given). I can see why law schools are considering the GRE, and this is due to analytical writing and verbal mostly (there are arguments in the verbal section). But I'm not sure if a 151 (without studying) is a verbal score that would allow me to get in at at least one law school that accepts the GRE.

I favor the GRE over the LSAT personally because I'm a science major, and I love how math is on it. In 2006, I did better on the quantitative than verbal, so if I did the practice quant section, I would have likely got higher than a 151. Maybe a 315 would be my overall diagnostic score. Is this good for an acceptance given my background information? Not sure. But what I am sure of is that if/when I actually study for the exam, I'm likely to do better than a 151 verbal. The arguments and reading passages kill me because I spend too much time on them, and every argument question I got wrong.

So in the interim, while studying for the GRE, I think I'm going to attend my local community college's ABA-approved paralegal program and take some courses for 2 semesters to supplement my certificate. I should be able to clear every single prerequisite because I have a certificate already. One course will definitely be field experience because that would give me a leg up on getting job (not repeating the mistake I made in 2014 with not doing an internship!). I'll also keep volunteering for the homeless while taking classes. Then get a paralegal job, eke out a recommendation letter from a lawyer, apply to law school, etc etc. So that's my plan. Any thoughts would be appreciated

[Libra]

GRE-only applicants are still a bit of a black box for admissions. However, I think Berkeley's recent move actually sheds a little light on it. They indicated that they're only really considering GRE applicants who have a specialized background (e.g. science) and probably other graduate degrees. Although that isn't the public policy of any other schools accepting the GRE, I'd hazard a guess that those schools have a similar approach.

The main thing is that not every T13 accepts the GRE. So you're cutting off options by being stubborn about this.

How is only taking the GRE and not considering taking the LSAT being stubborn? If he/she wants to only take the GRE, that's perfectly fine. I'm the same way. I'm a science/health care major, so it makes way more sense for me to take the GRE than the LSAT. Taking both is sheer insanity, of course. Now although only about 46 law schools accept the GRE for admission currently, that's still 46 schools. Plenty of options.

[Libra]

So I took a diagnostic GRE Verbal portion of a practice test (from the McGraw-Hill 2019 book) and scored a 151(according to their score conversion chart). I personally found this to be pretty bad. However, I'm not sure if this is as bad as I think it is, considering I haven't done any studying at all for the exam (yet). Here's some other background information about me that could bolster my case for an acceptance with such a low verbal score (IF it's 151 on the real thing):

A) I'm in my mid-30s applying to law school.

B) I have a 3.97 undergrad GPA in a medical field. I graduated in the mid-2000s. From what I've been reading, science grads are underrepresented in law, so I see this as a big advantage for me (more so than philosophy/humanities/sociology majors), along with the high GPA.

C) I have an ABA-approved paralegal certificate (completed in 2014). 3.97 GPA in that, too (oddly enough), so I definitely haven't lost my academic potential. I'm academically consistent. No work experience, however, as a paralegal, and my health care employment has been spotty due to drastic licensing changes that forced me out of the profession. The one regret I have from the paralegal program is not doing an internship, which was offered. That would have likely led to a job. Without the internship, I had tremendous problems trying to get a paralegal job because of the uber-saturated legal job market (this was in San Francisco, perhaps the most saturated legal market in the country) and the fact that so many jobs required experience. So I was faced with the classic dilemma of "need a job to get experience/need experience to get a job". When all the jobs I saw required experience, this was a big problem and I ultimately moved out of San Francisco.

D) I have work experience in health care and running my own business in a spiritually based career doing counseling.

E) I did some volunteer health care activities when I was in college, and I am currently volunteering to assist the homeless.

As for the GRE, I took it back in 2006 with the old format. I scored a 1320 out of 1600 with a 5.5 Analytical Writing score. Now I know that my score is way too old, and no school will take a glance at that. Since then, the new GRE is way, way more difficult (especially with multiple answers where no partial credit is given). I can see why law schools are considering the GRE, and this is due to analytical writing and verbal mostly (there are arguments in the verbal section). But I'm not sure if a 151 (without studying) is a verbal score that would allow me to get in at at least one law school that accepts the GRE.

I favor the GRE over the LSAT personally because I'm a science major, and I love how math is on it. In 2006, I did better on the quantitative than verbal, so if I did the practice quant section, I would have likely got higher than a 151. Maybe a 315 would be my overall diagnostic score. Is this good for an acceptance given my background information? Not sure. But what I am sure of is that if/when I actually study for the exam, I'm likely to do better than a 151 verbal. The arguments and reading passages kill me because I spend too much time on them, and every argument question I got wrong.

So in the interim, while studying for the GRE, I think I'm going to attend my local community college's ABA-approved paralegal program and take some courses for 2 semesters to supplement my certificate. I should be able to clear every single prerequisite because I have a certificate already. One course will definitely be field experience because that would give me a leg up on getting job (not repeating the mistake I made in 2014 with not doing an internship!). I'll also keep volunteering for the homeless while taking classes. Then get a paralegal job, eke out a recommendation letter from a lawyer, apply to law school, etc etc. So that's my plan. Any thoughts would be appreciated

And by the way, in the last semester of my paralegal program, I was pulled aside by my professor (an attorney with 30 years experience) and he said, "If you want a recommendation to law school, you got one." I never even asked him for a recommendation letter. He just intuitively sensed that I would make a killer law student/lawyer. I was very honored and humbled by that. In my personal opinion, standardized tests like the GRE or LSAT have absolutely no bearing on actual performance in law school, but that's just my opinion. Sample bar exams in my state look nothing like those exams, and I prefer analyzing a scenario and applying the law to it. I can't get enough of writing. Love it. But as for the GRE/LSAT, I only see it as an admissions criterion to compare students, which has nothing to do with actual law school performance (given all the other factors involved). I'll only take the GRE once after preparing for it as best I can, then I'll apply. It's better to take a chance than not at all.

[The Lsat Airbender]

So in the interim, while studying for the GRE, I think I'm going to attend my local community college's ABA-approved paralegal program and take some courses for 2 semesters to supplement my certificate. I should be able to clear every single prerequisite because I have a certificate already. One course will definitely be field experience because that would give me a leg up on getting job (not repeating the mistake I made in 2014 with not doing an internship!). I'll also keep volunteering for the homeless while taking classes. Then get a paralegal job, eke out a recommendation letter from a lawyer, apply to law school, etc etc. So that's my plan.

This all sounds like a huge waste of time, to be frank. If you're serious about law school I'd just take the LSAT. Paralegal certs make no sense if you intend to get an actual JD and the GRE makes no sense if you're empirically bad at it - it's already suboptimal for LS admissions because a lot of schools won't accept it.

No particular reason your letters of rec need to come from lawyers - any employer will do. Try very hard to get an academic letter if at all possible (although schools will be somewhat understanding given how long you've been out of school).

[Libra]

So in the interim, while studying for the GRE, I think I'm going to attend my local community college's ABA-approved paralegal program and take some courses for 2 semesters to supplement my certificate. I should be able to clear every single prerequisite because I have a certificate already. One course will definitely be field experience because that would give me a leg up on getting job (not repeating the mistake I made in 2014 with not doing an internship!). I'll also keep volunteering for the homeless while taking classes. Then get a paralegal job, eke out a recommendation letter from a lawyer, apply to law school, etc etc. So that's my plan.

This all sounds like a huge waste of time, to be frank. If you're serious about law school I'd just take the LSAT. Paralegal certs make no sense if you intend to get an actual JD and the GRE makes no sense if you're empirically bad at it - it's already suboptimal for LS admissions because a lot of schools won't accept it.

No particular reason your letters of rec need to come from lawyers - any employer will do. Try very hard to get an academic letter if at all possible (although schools will be somewhat understanding given how long you've been out of school).

Nothing is a waste of time, and I absolutely will take the GRE instead of the LSAT. If law schools accept the GRE as an alternative, and people actually get in with taking it, why advocate for the LSAT more? Sounds like bias here, no doubt. I also found it funny how LSAC gave some sharp criticism about the GRE, which makes a lot of sense because this means they now have competition, and with competition comes a possible decrease in revenue from their LSAT administration and whatever materials they offer. Doesn't take a genius to figure that one out...greedy, greedy LSAC.

You say, "It's '[the GRE] already suboptimal for LS admissions because a lot of schools won't accept it." About 46 schools or so accept it out of what..200? 46 schools give me plenty of options, so I'm not worried about the number of schools that accept GRE. You would be a fool to think that actually makes a difference.

"Paralegal certs make no sense if you intend to get an actual JD..." Do you have a paralegal cert? If not, how would you even know? A person could have gotten a paralegal cert 15 years ago and then they want to become a lawyer now. People change, their interests change. Fact of life.

And I know that I don't necessarily need a LOR from a lawyer. It's nice to have. I can get an LOR from a past health care supervisor; even one from my volunteer organization. Not a problem. Getting a LOR from a lawyer can't hurt.

After reading my response here, I'm now even more convinced that I have to go the full lawyer route LOL

[The Lsat Airbender]

You say, "It's '[the GRE] already suboptimal for LS admissions because a lot of schools won't accept it." About 46 schools or so accept it out of what..200? 46 schools give me plenty of options, so I'm not worried about the number of schools that accept GRE. You would be a fool to think that actually makes a difference.

200 is a much larger number than 46. The non-GRE camp includes some excellent institutions. It seems clear to me that, ceteris paribus, it would be much better to apply with an LSAT score.

But, moreover, you apparently are concerned that you might be rather mediocre at the GRE. I don't see why you shouldn't at least make a solid attempt at the LSAT; you might be pleasantly surprised.

"Paralegal certs make no sense if you intend to get an actual JD..." Do you have a paralegal cert? If not, how would you even know? A person could have gotten a paralegal cert 15 years ago and then they want to become a lawyer now. People change, their interests change. Fact of life.

I worked as a paralegal before law school (didn't need a certificate in my state but that's beside the point) and I think it's great experience. Not trying to say anything bad about that. But I'm not sure what the value-add of more paralegal classes now could possibly be when you're already certified to work as a para and you intend to go to full-blown law school anyway.

And I know that I don't necessarily need a LOR from a lawyer. It's nice to have. I can get an LOR from a past health care supervisor; even one from my volunteer organization. Not a problem. Getting a LOR from a lawyer can't hurt.

Certainly. All I mean is that you shouldn't go well out of your way to get a LoR from this or that person.

In my personal opinion, standardized tests like the GRE or LSAT have absolutely no bearing on actual performance in law school, but that's just my opinion.

Statistically, there is a valid correlation between LSAT/GRE performance and two important variables: 1) 1L grade and 2) bar passage rates. It's actually the single best measure we have. So any decent law school puts a lot of weight on these tests in their admissions decisions, and you'd be wise to take them seriously (whichever you end up taking).

It's better to take a chance than not at all.

It's even better to succeed than to take a chance.

[cavalier1138]

GRE-only applicants are still a bit of a black box for admissions. However, I think Berkeley's recent move actually sheds a little light on it. They indicated that they're only really considering GRE applicants who have a specialized background (e.g. science) and probably other graduate degrees. Although that isn't the public policy of any other schools accepting the GRE, I'd hazard a guess that those schools have a similar approach.

The main thing is that not every T13 accepts the GRE. So you're cutting off options by being stubborn about this.

How is only taking the GRE and not considering taking the LSAT being stubborn? If he/she wants to only take the GRE, that's perfectly fine. I'm the same way. I'm a science/health care major, so it makes way more sense for me to take the GRE than the LSAT. Taking both is sheer insanity, of course. Now although only about 46 law schools accept the GRE for admission currently, that's still 46 schools. Plenty of options.

It's being stubborn for the OP (and you), because you're treating law school like undergrad. If the OP's goals are only reachable from top schools, then they don't have 46 schools to choose from.

Your other thread suggests that you have an extremely arrogant approach to law school admissions for someone who hasn't actually started the process yet. Slow your roll, and try to listen to advice from people who have already been there.

[Libra]

GRE-only applicants are still a bit of a black box for admissions. However, I think Berkeley's recent move actually sheds a little light on it. They indicated that they're only really considering GRE applicants who have a specialized background (e.g. science) and probably other graduate degrees. Although that isn't the public policy of any other schools accepting the GRE, I'd hazard a guess that those schools have a similar approach.

The main thing is that not every T13 accepts the GRE. So you're cutting off options by being stubborn about this.

How is only taking the GRE and not considering taking the LSAT being stubborn? If he/she wants to only take the GRE, that's perfectly fine. I'm the same way. I'm a science/health care major, so it makes way more sense for me to take the GRE than the LSAT. Taking both is sheer insanity, of course. Now although only about 46 law schools accept the GRE for admission currently, that's still 46 schools. Plenty of options.

It's being stubborn for the OP (and you), because you're treating law school like undergrad. If the OP's goals are only reachable from top schools, then they don't have 46 schools to choose from.

Your other thread suggests that you have an extremely arrogant approach to law school admissions for someone who hasn't actually started the process yet. Slow your roll, and try to listen to advice from people who have already been there.

How am I treating law school like undergrad based on number of schools to choose from? Something doesn't add up there.

And as for advice, there's a lot of trash on here. For example, "getting a paralegal certificate and working as a paralegal is a waste of time if you intend on becoming a lawyer" is pure garbage. Shot that down right away. I see the same types of ridiculous logic on SDN, student doctor network. These people might have logical sense that could earn them top scores on standardized tests, but no common sense in the real world.

[Libra]

You say, "It's '[the GRE] already suboptimal for LS admissions because a lot of schools won't accept it." About 46 schools or so accept it out of what..200? 46 schools give me plenty of options, so I'm not worried about the number of schools that accept GRE. You would be a fool to think that actually makes a difference.

200 is a much larger number than 46. The non-GRE camp includes some excellent institutions. It seems clear to me that, ceteris paribus, it would be much better to apply with an LSAT score.

But, moreover, you apparently are concerned that you might be rather mediocre at the GRE. I don't see why you shouldn't at least make a solid attempt at the LSAT; you might be pleasantly surprised.

"Paralegal certs make no sense if you intend to get an actual JD..." Do you have a paralegal cert? If not, how would you even know? A person could have gotten a paralegal cert 15 years ago and then they want to become a lawyer now. People change, their interests change. Fact of life.

I worked as a paralegal before law school (didn't need a certificate in my state but that's beside the point) and I think it's great experience. Not trying to say anything bad about that. But I'm not sure what the value-add of more paralegal classes now could possibly be when you're already certified to work as a para and you intend to go to full-blown law school anyway.

And I know that I don't necessarily need a LOR from a lawyer. It's nice to have. I can get an LOR from a past health care supervisor; even one from my volunteer organization. Not a problem. Getting a LOR from a lawyer can't hurt.

Certainly. All I mean is that you shouldn't go well out of your way to get a LoR from this or that person.

In my personal opinion, standardized tests like the GRE or LSAT have absolutely no bearing on actual performance in law school, but that's just my opinion.

Statistically, there is a valid correlation between LSAT/GRE performance and two important variables: 1) 1L grade and 2) bar passage rates. It's actually the single best measure we have. So any decent law school puts a lot of weight on these tests in their admissions decisions, and you'd be wise to take them seriously (whichever you end up taking).

It's better to take a chance than not at all.

It's even better to succeed than to take a chance.

"The non-GRE camp includes some excellent institutions. It seems clear to me that, ceteris paribus, it would be much better to apply with an LSAT score."

Hmm...the GRE camp actually includes Harvard, Yale, Cornell, UCLA. At least that's when I last checked yesterday.

"I'm not sure what the value-add of more paralegal classes now could possibly be when you're already certified to work as a para and you intend to go to full-blown law school anyway."

The value is pretty clear. A paralegal certificate program offers quite a few courses, only 10 or so of which are necessary to gain the certificate. You have a choice of electives to take after a few core courses, and there are a bunch of electives (which I didn't get a chance to take, or couldn't because I completed the program requirements). Therefore, to supplement my certificate, I want to take courses that I didn't take when in my original program (i.e. Civil/Criminal Evidence, E-Discovery, whatever). Being well-rounded is always a plus. Also, I've never worked as a paralegal and it's been 5 years since I did the program. That's a large gap of time, so I will need to rehash some stuff. Only 5 or 6 courses should be enough, which I can do in 2 semesters. To top it off, they will all be free in my state (thanks California for providing tuition waivers to students who qualify). I have a lot of free time to accomplish this and I have no stable career at the moment. This is the next best thing to start making purposeful money quickly in the interim, and it's good legal experience.

"Statistically, there is a valid correlation between LSAT/GRE performance and two important variables: 1) 1L grade and 2) bar passage rates."

For your perusal: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/vi ... t=articles
I would especially read paragraph 2 on page 2.

"It's even better to succeed than to take a chance."

More often than not, you need to take a chance in order to find out if you will succeed in the first place. Fortune favors the bold.

[nixy]

Nothing is a waste of time, and I absolutely will take the GRE instead of the LSAT. If law schools accept the GRE as an alternative, and people actually get in with taking it, why advocate for the LSAT more? Sounds like bias here, no doubt. I also found it funny how LSAC gave some sharp criticism about the GRE, which makes a lot of sense because this means they now have competition, and with competition comes a possible decrease in revenue from their LSAT administration and whatever materials they offer. Doesn't take a genius to figure that one out...greedy, greedy LSAC.

You say, "It's '[the GRE] already suboptimal for LS admissions because a lot of schools won't accept it." About 46 schools or so accept it out of what..200? 46 schools give me plenty of options, so I'm not worried about the number of schools that accept GRE. You would be a fool to think that actually makes a difference.

The bias is also that there's far less information about how candidates with GREs are treated in admissions than how candidates with LSATs are treated. It's not clear what's a good/bad/middling GRE score, whereas having a LSAT score makes your outcome much more predictable. Also, 46 schools is a lot of schools, but does it include schools that actually make sense for your goals? The point isn't to be accepted to any law school, it's to be accepted to a school that will allow you to achieve your goals without overly burdening you with debt.

"Paralegal certs make no sense if you intend to get an actual JD..." Do you have a paralegal cert? If not, how would you even know? A person could have gotten a paralegal cert 15 years ago and then they want to become a lawyer now. People change, their interests change. Fact of life.

Sure... but that doesn't address what Lsat Airbender was saying. For the purpose of law school admissions, there is no need to spend money to augment your current paralegal certificate now, or even to work as a paralegal. If you need to find work anyway, sure, a paralegal gig is fine. But since you're talking about law school admission plans, this sounds like adding time/money you don't need to spend.

And I know that I don't necessarily need a LOR from a lawyer. It's nice to have. I can get an LOR from a past health care supervisor; even one from my volunteer organization. Not a problem. Getting a LOR from a lawyer can't hurt.

Who your letter is from (in the sense of what profession they represent) is much less important than what it says. You want a LOR to be able to speak glowingly about specific examples of your positive characteristics. So again, "LOR from lawyer" isn't something you need to check off any list for applying for law school.

After reading my response here, I'm now even more convinced that I have to go the full lawyer route LOL

I don't get this.

In any case, your UGPA is of course excellent, and that will help you (though major isn't really weighed that heavily. Your health care experience could be very helpful wrt getting a job once you're in law school, if you want to go into related practice, but isn't going to really move the needle on acceptance in a vacuum - though it can help if it's part of an overall coherent narrative you present in your application as a whole). There's really not that much advice to offer about your application until you have some kind of test score, though.

[Npret]

If you aren’t doing well on the GRE, I can’t see you doing well on the LSAT. Possibly not even in law school.

Do whatever you want. My only advice to you is to go to the cheapest school possible. Don’t expect to get rich doing law.

[QContinuum]

And as for advice, there's a lot of trash on here. For example, "getting a paralegal certificate and working as a paralegal is a waste of time if you intend on becoming a lawyer" is pure garbage. Shot that down right away. I see the same types of ridiculous logic on SDN, student doctor network. These people might have logical sense that could earn them top scores on standardized tests, but no common sense in the real world.

Alright, Libra, enough is enough. You don't have to agree with any other TLSer. You are, obviously, free to go off and get a paralegal certificate and apply to 46 law schools with an abysmal GRE score. But you are not free to recklessly demean other posters by calling their advice "trash" or "pure garbage" or blasting them for using "ridiculous logic" or having "no common sense". Further behavior along these lines will result in a ban.

In a bid to protect other 0Ls I've also relocated your unproductive comments to your own thread.

[The Lsat Airbender]

For your perusal: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/vi ... t=articles
I would especially read paragraph 2 on page 2.

Old news; nothing in that paper contradicts what I said above. I'm not saying the LSAT (or the GRE) is perfect but it's still the best single indicator we have.

Fortune favors the bold.

Law school favors the intelligent.

[cavalier1138]

These people might have logical sense that could earn them top scores on standardized tests, but no common sense in the real world.

Over the years, I've come to recognize that "common sense" is a stand in for "I can't support my position, but I really, really want it to be true."

Logical reasoning is absolutely essential for the practice of law. You may disagree with the LSAT's approach to testing that reasoning (you wouldn't be alone), but unfortunately, the only other alternative is a test that you aren't scoring very well on at the moment. So you can either spend your time getting your GRE score up or focusing on LSAT prep. If you do the former, you're cutting off a lot of options for yourself. So logically, spending your time on the test that gives you the chance to apply across the T13 would be a better use of your energy. But who knows? Maybe common sense dictates otherwise.

[Npret]

These people might have logical sense that could earn them top scores on standardized tests, but no common sense in the real world.

Over the years, I've come to recognize that "common sense" is a stand in for "I can't support my position, but I really, really want it to be true."

Logical reasoning is absolutely essential for the practice of law. You may disagree with the LSAT's approach to testing that reasoning (you wouldn't be alone), but unfortunately, the only other alternative is a test that you aren't scoring very well on at the moment. So you can either spend your time getting your GRE score up or focusing on LSAT prep. If you do the former, you're cutting off a lot of options for yourself. So logically, spending your time on the test that gives you the chance to apply across the T13 would be a better use of your energy. But who knows? Maybe common sense dictates otherwise.

When does high logical sense shown on a test mean you don’t have common sense? I doubt OP has known many people with top LSAT scores so really has no grounds for comparison. Being a good lawyer requires both logical thinking and common sense. Not sure why OP thinks they are mutually exclusive.

[nixy]

And as for advice, there's a lot of trash on here. For example, "getting a paralegal certificate and working as a paralegal is a waste of time if you intend on becoming a lawyer" is pure garbage. Shot that down right away. I see the same types of ridiculous logic on SDN, student doctor network. These people might have logical sense that could earn them top scores on standardized tests, but no common sense in the real world.

Oh honey. Disagreeing with someone doesn’t mean you’ve shot their argument down.

[Libra]

Actually, I shouldn't even be fretting on a 151 diagnostic verbal score from a McGraw-Hill book. The only reliable source of practice material and actual tests are from ETS itself, so their guides and their tests are really what matters. That 151 is likely to be a 160+ on ETS tests. Test prep companies can't exactly mirror the actual GRE questions because they would get sued millions (copyright issues). Greg Mat on YouTube explains this well. Whew! That takes some pressure off.

And we can forget about the LSAT vs. GRE debate. One is not more superior over the other. They both have their advantages. And again, it is worth repeating mention of this research article, focusing in on page 2, paragraph 2:

https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/vi ... t=articles

I also wonder what the demographics are of the people posting in this thread I started, particularly their ages and whether they are law students, law school applicants, admissions committee members, or practicing attorneys.

[The Lsat Airbender]

And again, it is worth repeating mention of this research article, focusing in on page 2, paragraph 2:

https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/vi ... t=articles

lmao

Allegedly got nearly-straight-As in a STEM field but can't read past the first two pages of a research paper

Not surprising, our results predicting 1L GPA, found in Table 6 column 1a,
are typical of other results found by the LSAC in their analysis of the usefulness
of LSAT as a predictor of 1L GPA. In a series of regressions using data from 152
unnamed schools over 2011 and 2012, LSAC estimated first year GPA from a
combination of LSAT and UGPA. The LSAC study shows that our two schools
are “typical” in that the correlation coefficients between first year grades and the
LSAT, UGPA, and a combination of LSAT and UGPA, respectively, in our study,
are nearly identical to the LSAC study averages. The LSAC study reported these
median correlations: First Year Average (“FYA”) (a variable equivalent to our 1L
GPA) and LSAT (r=0.35), FYA and UGPA (r=0.29), and LSAT and UGPA
combined (r=0.47). Comparable to the LSAC study findings, our study found
these median correlations: FYA and LSAT (r=0.37), FYA and UGPA (r=0.28),
and LSAT and UGPA combined (r=0.39). Our results track the LSAC results,
making our two schools “typical” for comparison purposes.

As far as 1L GPA is concerned, our correlations and R-square results
generally track the LSAC findings. While the correlation coefficient gives us the
strength of the linear relationship between the coefficients, squaring the
correlation coefficient yields the coefficient of determination (“R-square”), which
gives us the variation that can be explained by the linear relationship between the
two variables. Their highest FYA and LSAT correlation (r=0.54), translates in an
R-square of 0.29 while their lowest FYA and LSAT correlation (r=0.16),
translates into an R-square of 0.03. The R-square values that we report in our
study are not the highest R-square values that the LSAC study reports – but they
are also not the lowest. They are closer to the averages that the LSAC study finds,
making our schools ‘typical’.

[Libra]

And again, it is worth repeating mention of this research article, focusing in on page 2, paragraph 2:

https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/vi ... t=articles

lmao

Allegedly got nearly-straight-As in a STEM field but can't read past the first two pages of a research paper

Not surprising, our results predicting 1L GPA, found in Table 6 column 1a,
are typical of other results found by the LSAC in their analysis of the usefulness
of LSAT as a predictor of 1L GPA. In a series of regressions using data from 152
unnamed schools over 2011 and 2012, LSAC estimated first year GPA from a
combination of LSAT and UGPA. The LSAC study shows that our two schools
are “typical” in that the correlation coefficients between first year grades and the
LSAT, UGPA, and a combination of LSAT and UGPA, respectively, in our study,
are nearly identical to the LSAC study averages. The LSAC study reported these
median correlations: First Year Average (“FYA”) (a variable equivalent to our 1L
GPA) and LSAT (r=0.35), FYA and UGPA (r=0.29), and LSAT and UGPA
combined (r=0.47). Comparable to the LSAC study findings, our study found
these median correlations: FYA and LSAT (r=0.37), FYA and UGPA (r=0.28),
and LSAT and UGPA combined (r=0.39). Our results track the LSAC results,
making our two schools “typical” for comparison purposes.

As far as 1L GPA is concerned, our correlations and R-square results
generally track the LSAC findings. While the correlation coefficient gives us the
strength of the linear relationship between the coefficients, squaring the
correlation coefficient yields the coefficient of determination (“R-square”), which
gives us the variation that can be explained by the linear relationship between the
two variables. Their highest FYA and LSAT correlation (r=0.54), translates in an
R-square of 0.29 while their lowest FYA and LSAT correlation (r=0.16),
translates into an R-square of 0.03. The R-square values that we report in our
study are not the highest R-square values that the LSAC study reports – but they
are also not the lowest. They are closer to the averages that the LSAC study finds,
making our schools ‘typical’.

And what we really need is a study on GRE, which there hasn't been enough time to research, but it's coming. Another thing...moderator, you better send a warning to that guy. Mocking my undergraduate work. This guy has to go!!!

[The Lsat Airbender]

And what we really need is a study on GRE, which there hasn't been enough time to research, but it's coming. Another thing...moderator, you better send a warning to that guy. Mocking my undergraduate work. This guy has to go!!!

I'm not mocking your undergraduate performance. It actually sounds quite impressive, which is why it's so hard to square with the lack of critical thinking you've displayed in this thread.

[albanach]

And we can forget about the LSAT vs. GRE debate. One is not more superior over the other. They both have their advantages.

The trouble, as I see it, is that you're addressing the wrong question.

You seem to be looking at whether the GRE is a good test for law schools to use in admissions. More law schools are using it, so maybe there's something there.

However, you're a 0L looking for admission. The question you need to ask is "What's the best test for me to take to get admitted to the best school?" As numerous others have pointed out, that test is the LSAT because (i) more top schools accept it; and (ii) it's less of a black box in admissions, so you'll have a very good idea of when you have a score good enough for the school(s) you'd like to attend.

It's also worth looking at the schools you listed to see how they might be using the GRE in their class of 2021:

• Yale - 0 out of 204 students don't have an LSAT score
• Harvard - 18 out of 566 students don't have an LSAT score
• Cornell - 0 out of 195 students don't have an LSAT score
• UCLA - 0 out of 311 students don't have an LSAT score

That's not to say you couldn't take the GRE and have a good cycle. You can even post here and let everyone know your stats and outcomes at schools, feeding into the data pool.

[nixy]

And we can forget about the LSAT vs. GRE debate. One is not more superior over the other. They both have their advantages.

The trouble, as I see it, is that you're addressing the wrong question.

You seem to be looking at whether the GRE is a good test for law schools to use in admissions. More law schools are using it, so maybe there's something there.

However, you're a 0L looking for admission. The question you need to ask is "What's the best test for me to take to get admitted to the best school?" As numerous others have pointed out, that test is the LSAT because (i) more top schools accept it; and (ii) it's less of a black box in admissions, so you'll have a very good idea of when you have a score good enough for the school(s) you'd like to attend.

It's also worth looking at the schools you listed to see how they might be using the GRE in their class of 2021:

• Yale - 0 out of 204 students don't have an LSAT score
• Harvard - 18 out of 566 students don't have an LSAT score
• Cornell - 0 out of 195 students don't have an LSAT score
• UCLA - 0 out of 311 students don't have an LSAT score

That's not to say you couldn't take the GRE and have a good cycle. You can even post here and let everyone know your stats and outcomes at schools, feeding into the data pool.

Exactly what albanach said. No one is telling you to take the LSAT because they think it’s a better predictor of law school success, just because it allows you to assess your application chances better.

Also, since you asked, I’m a practicing lawyer who went back to school as a non-trad after a previous career.

[Npret]

The reason Harvard started accepting GREs was to attract exceptional students from diverse field who have already taken the GRE and have an interest in law but haven’t taken the LSAT. The assumption is that they will have applicants with near perfect (or perfect) GREs because that’s what they expect on the LSAT.

Accepting GREs was not designed to be a substitute for the LSAT for law only applicants or applicants who feel they won’t do well on the LSAT.

Other schools started accepting the GRE more broadly after a few top
schools said they would accept it. There is no data on this, but the expectation seems to be that every school will want a top GRE score.

I doubt OP is anything more than a troll
at this point. Most genuine students try to listen to advice and digest it, rather than attacking the posters here.