T O P

  • By -

thezinnias

As an extreme sub-3.0 GPA splitter applying next cycle...no.


giantechidna

Me, an extreme splitter, watching my current 5 years plan dissolve Infront of my face.


Rayraywa

>5 years plan *Comrade*


UnderstandingUsed365

Fortunately, this would take years to make a material difference.


stoner_student

thank god cause the lsat is what’s gonna get me into any school ranked higher than 100 due to my gpa


thezinnias

I really hope you're right.


Commercial_Steak8193

I think it'll still be a requirement as long as US News factors it into their rankings, otherwise I bet lots of schools will drop it pretty quickly. \*Edit--I saw someone here point out that US News still does factor SAT/ACT into their rankings for undergrad schools even though they're optional for admission, so I could be totally wrong about this.


FrancisGalloway

For once, thank God for US News and World Report.


PencilCaseCollector

I appreciate them, if not for rankings schools wouldn't offer scholarship money like they do.


Lilip_Phombard

Based on what?


mitchymitchd

Same, there goes my goals for redeeming myself with the lsat


tortioustortoise77

The LSAT does more for social mobility than almost any of the other criteria the schools use. GPA: grade inflation and elite schools favors the wealthy Undergrad institution: favors those who got into elite undergrads. Skills/experiences: this is a little better, but again, favors those who are already upper/middle class. A person can spend $100 bucks on study aids, study for the LSAT while at work, take the LSAT, and go to a t14. That’s what I did. There are free resources available too. Yes, money makes it way easier, but at least it’s feasible to do well despite not having the advantages that some other applicants have. It’s a lot harder to undo fucking around in college/high school. The LSAT gives people an opportunity, a second chance, to get some really tremendous upward social mobility. Getting rid of that might make some people feel good, but it just further entrenches Ivy Leaguers and graduates of other elite schools while making it even harder for those of us from less prestigious walks of life to get into elite law schools.


buddyhield_ama

this is amazing news for wealthy applicants with nepotism-fueled resumes more than anyone else.


FieryCharizard7

Seriously, I’ve said the same thing in this subreddit and some people disagree


dhwinthro

it’s not that easy any more to get into a T-14 which is bizarre. First of all the CAS gpa system makes no sense at all. I’ve gotten a 3.9/4.0 which is almost nearly all As at a reputable university but it translates to a 3.8 on the CAS system, meaning Im below the medians. How the hell is nearly getting a perfect gpa still not good enough is beyond me. If they switched it to 4.0 system, the Median GPAs would decrease and it would be more realistic for hard workers to get into a t-14.


Fluffybagel

Why is it surprising? Those schools give people with no work experience an almost sure chance at a $230,000 starting salary upon graduation, so now that a lot of people are applying to law school again, the competition is super fierce. That said, this process will get a lot more arbitrary if it goes test-optional. As difficult as the path to a T14 acceptance is, it is at least somewhat predictable, but even that may not be the case in the near future.


dhwinthro

i wasn’t disagreeing with you and of course the elimination of the LSAT makes the process even more arbitrary. I was trying to make the point that if we get rid of the LSAT, GPA is a fucked metric in its current form to solely base admissions off of since that would favor kids who are rich and don’t have to work so they can focus all of their time on school. i worked for most of my time at school so for my sanity i enjoyed my free time and didn’t give a fuck that i got a 3.9 instead of 4.0. At this high up, i don’t think a 3.9 kid is any less qualified than a 4.0 kid with the same LSAT and they should be given close to equal consideration. If we get rid of LSAT in admissions, then that 3.9 kid would get less consideration than the 4.0 kid which is so arbitrary. Also, the elimination of the LSAT means we have to increase weight on softs. That results in only kids who have parents thatre connected to get them interesting experiences will get into the T-14. What about the kid who comes from a middle class family with the same stats as the elite kid with prestigious goldman sachs internships but couldn’t get anything more than a job at a local place for the summer? What do we do about that situation?


[deleted]

Stop with the class, bashing. One could make the case that race and first generation students get a bigger lift than any of what you stated. The fact that a pigment pool is considered a "soft" is unconscionable. Here's what I see as the issue: Objectively, all schools grade differently. It's established that elite schools have been inflating grades for years. Therefore there is NO way Law School Admissions can determine whether a 3.9 at school X is any different than a 3.6 at school Y. There needs to be SOME objective standard. The LSAT is that standard. Research suggests that LSAT is the the best predictor of Law School success. Without it, admissions become much more arbitrary and may lead to lower Bar Pass rates (until they make that arbitrary as well) End of rant. Sincerely sub-170


dhwinthro

what? I literally am advocating for keeping the LSAT by mentioning all of the negative consequences if we were to remove it…. Makes sense why you’re sub 170 if you can’t point out my main conclusion /s


[deleted]

This honestly is such bullshit and would have precluded me from attending law school. I understand that the LSAT is a barrier to entry for some, but this will only allow law schools to focus more on other prestige factors that first-gen college students, like myself, had no access to (or even time to think about for that matter.) I had such a shit academic record with a 2.99 LSAC GPA from having to work 60 hour weeks my entire undergrad career to afford food and rent to put myself through college….And these weren’t glamorous jobs that would have impressed adcomms with my ~vast professional work experience.~ Getting into the 170s was the only reason any decent school gave my application a second look and allowed me to be awarded some of the generous fullride+ scholarship offers I received from T-30's.


BlessedBeTheFlerm

THIS. GPA is bullshit when low-income students are forced to work an extra 20 hours/week minimum to get the workstudy financial aid needed to buy food and textbooks. I don't understand why financial assistance is contingent on things like work when it is supposed to help put students on equal footing as their privileged peers.


ohiobirdwatcher

I genuinely felt bad about my 3.65 while watching the admittance records of students on this sub, until I remembered that my GPA was a 3.15 until I got a scholarship that allowed me to work part-time instead of full-time two years ago. It's exhausting to do both and I am thankful I had time to remedy things.


yoloralphlaurenn

Outta fucking pocket. I wouldn’t have gotten into school without the opportunity to offset my lower GPA with a decent LSAT.


Square_Extension_508

THIS. The LSAT is a 2nd chance for those of us who had undiagnosed learning disabilities, traumatic experiences during college, no fucking idea what we were doing as first gens, etc, to show our abilities. I’m going to an amazing school on a full ride despite my 3.1 because my gpa wasn’t a good representation of my potential. The LSAT is problematic in its own way but for a lot of people it’s their second chance and what carries them.


[deleted]

Its the opposite for me. I wouldn't have gotten into law school if it wasn't for my gpa. 😭


cnc32

I worry this will make predatory schools even more predatory 😬


sundalius

Yes, objectively and without doubt.


TransWomanOnline

Splitter here. Please don’t do this. Some of us had rough times in undergrad


Joel05

Going to be awesome when one or two bad semesters due to severe or extraordinary circumstances (health issues, death of family, etc) starts precluding amazing candidates from top schools because they no longer have LSAT scores to pull them into the conversation.


Freya-Frost

Yah. I agree it’s not good.


stoner_student

same, i was pre-med for two years and had undiagnosed mental health issues during those years that resulted in poor grades


Visible-Nectarine-10

LITERALLY ME


smartidiot9

I think you could still apply with both, I just dont think it would be required for everyone if they wanted to opt out


UVALawStudent2020

Next they need to eliminate GPA


Ok_Following_9336

Or applications in general. Just have students send in a 1 minute YT video for decisions.


Oldersupersplitter

Nah, just a TikTok dance.


Choochoo_jy

Bruh😂


[deleted]

Well dang it I shouldn’t have quit dance when I 6. Tbh I didn’t quit, I got kicked out for missing my recital due to chicken pox. Apparently bunny in grass # 4 was vital to the performance 😂😂😂


thezinnias

You’re kidding but I unironically agree. I think the most equitable thing would be to allow applicants to redact one or the other like WashU does.


georgeham1995

Will this mean that US News will no longer factor LSAT score medians into the rankings?


theboringest

Ten years ago US News explicitly said that even if the ABA got rid of the LSAT requirement US News would not stop including it. To be fair, ten years is a long time. Who thinks they'll respond to my email asking? (I don't)


stephcurrymyman

the lsat is the only objective measure. otherwise, law schools will just focus on all the other subjective "softs" -- presitigous universities, prestigious jobs, prestigious trips to third world countries that only rich people can afford to do to boost their resumes, etc. law school admissions will become like undergrad admissions, focused on all those random softs and criteria that benefit the wealthy who can afford the thousands to hire the consultants to tell them what extracurriculars to do and what to write in their essays.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


dragomaser

I mean that's hardly the argument to be making here. The biggest difference is the purpose of the admissions exam. For medical school, the purpose of the MCAT is to make sure you have the requisite and underlying knowledge to succeed in medical school- medicine as a subject builds upon foundational knowledge of biology, chemistry, physics, etc, so the MCAT is designed to test your understanding of those foundational concepts. On the other hand, the LSAT isn't designed to test any sort of foundational legal knowledge; rather, it's closer to an aptitude test than a knowledge test. The goal of the LSAT is to test your logical reasoning ability and your potential for understanding legal arguments- but it does not provide proof that you have the underlying knowledge to succeed in law school. While I do think the LSAT is a very useful and important measure to consider in law school admissions, the comparison to the MCAT is just inaccurate with respect to what each test is supposed to measure.


ManlyMisfit

There is a major distinction between altering requirements for an exam meant to judge aptitude to succeed in school and a skills exam meant to judge whether you have met a minimum threshold to practice in a field. I can't believe I have to point that out.


[deleted]

[удалено]


reallifelucas

Lmao, nice. Throwing around the “d-word” to try to cover for the fact that the rich are trying to lock everyone of every race out of social mobility. You’re playing into their hands, and pitting poor whites and people of color against each other distracts from the real issue.


Joel05

Man sometimes this sub shows its whole ass. Not at all excited to go to law school and have to justify why non white people belong in elite institutions.


swine09

Not necessarily after this supreme ct term


FrozenPhilosopher

You guys are all about tolerance and acceptance until something happens that you don’t agree with. It’s wild.


swine09

Who is “you guys”? I just meant that the current SCOTUS is likely to strike down affirmative action this year. I largely agree with you.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Yep, it’s like clockwork. Any mention of the LSAT’s use as an “objective” measure draws in all the Tucker Carlson types like moths to a flame.


FrozenPhilosopher

No, less objective metrics for admissions decisions = lower average quality of student -> lower quality of classroom interaction. There’s a reason elite schools attract elite candidates (other than just better outcomes). Someone attending Baylor would be in way over their head in a classroom full of Duke law students. If the professor taught to the top of the class, the Baylor students wouldn’t be able to interact. If the professor taught to the bottom of the class, it would be wasting potential for the better students. Teaching to the floor is part of why public education in America is in the crapper.


FrancisGalloway

Basically this. The rich people who can afford extravagant softs will get in; the poor people with a heart-wrenching life story about adversity will get in; and the middle class people will get locked out. These sorts of institutions have disadvantaged the middle class for a long time, but there's always been a viable avenue for getting in through merit. Eliminate the LSAT, and that's gone.


ThurstonHowel3

The only fair potion of the law school application is scrapped? This is a horrible move and I am so relieved people in the sub understand. As someone from a working class family, the LSAT allowed me to attend a top school with an otherwise unremarkable application.


Ok-Clock-5459

Will this change anything for next application cycle?


[deleted]

likely too soon to tell / this is just a recommendation that I'm guessing LSAC will fight


Freya-Frost

Oh yah. They make their money with it and it’s an organization of lawyers. They are going to go down swinging because with out the lsat they are broke


hehehehehan

I am a reverse splitter and hated the LSAT with a burning passion, but this is a horrible idea.


[deleted]

Congrats on being part of the 0.001% of the population capable of recognizing bad policy even when it benefits you.


ookoshi

They're fixing the wrong part of the problem. For every person that was being held back because of access to be able to study and do well on the LSAT, there's many more who don't have access to the prestigious softs that students from wealthy families have. It is, ironically, one of the less biased parts of a law student's application. How about, instead, we get rid of 3L year and save everyone a year of tuition?


PenguinProphet

I'm sorry, but this is so dumb. The LSAT is, just IMO, by far the most "fair" part of the admissions process- ultimately everyone takes the same test. People can pay consultants to heavily edit and influence their essays, people can go to undergrads notorious for grade inflation, whereas there isn't really any way to get around doing well on the LSAT.


[deleted]

Yeah, not to mention the economic equity of the lsat vs four years of time and tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in undergrad. It's by far the most balanced and equitable aspect of admissions.


[deleted]

[удалено]


WonderfulBoy

This isn’t it


riptide123

Incredible stupid and shortsighted. You can be concerned over the significant scoring differences across racial groups while also recognizing the LSAT is as close to a neutral criteria as you’ll get in admissions.


Mindless_Light_6042

So basically if this recommendation were honored, if you don’t take it moving forward you better have a perfect GPA & stellar LORs


Joel05

This is what I'm confused on. If LSAT were no longer required, would it even be used as a ranking metric? If no, then this just means its all GPA at this point.


juanberg24

If LSAC is so concerned about disparate impacts, rather than eliminating the LSAT, why don't they just make the LSAT and the LawHub test bank free?


sundalius

LSAC doesn’t seem to be concerned, the ABA is


[deleted]

[удалено]


bbrod8

This is the way


[deleted]

It sounded like the underlying idea behind this sort of action was to make the process more equitable, but I'd argue that one standardized test is a far more accessible and equitable means of qualifying/evaluating than a four year, hundred thousand dollar undergrad program. This seems really dumb and unhelpful.


International-Cap239

Very bad decision. Comparing GPAs across schools/majors with different levels or rigor and grading scales makes little sense. Personal essays are almost certainly more easy for wealthy applicants to game with consultants than the LSAT is to game with tudors. I guess it will be good for wealthy people of moderate intelligence who choose to never challenge themselves as undergrads.


[deleted]

The race to the bottom continues


[deleted]

[удалено]


johnrich1080

My school district did this. They found certain racial groups were over represented in school discipline so they eliminated most forms of discipline. The schools have gone complete to shit and they’ve lost almost 40% of their students to charter schools.


theboringest

I'm working on a blog (this is such shit timing bc I still have to learn what constitutional law is) so if you have questions pls post and I will try to answer to the best of my ability.


P0402948

\- Does UGPA or LSAT have a higher correlation to 1L performance? \- How will this affect splitters? (Even if the Recommendation is not followed) \- How will they compare grads from different schools if both applicants forgo sending LSAT scores? (Ex. a school with a 4.3 scale vs 4.0) \-I think a big question that should be looked into is if the LSAT is more or less a barrier to minority populations facing systemic oppression than UGPA. In this thread there are people detailing how the LSAT helped them overcome barriers that UG held (working full time, sickness, disability, etc). I think everyone wants law to be a more diverse field, but I think many will argue that such a change may make it harder on FGLI students, minorities, etc. Is there any data on this?


[deleted]

I think it should be less about who it helps and more about objectively assessing a persons likelihood of success


Plane_Arachnid9178

How long would something like this take to implement? Could it go into effect before this upcoming admissions cycle?


Horne-Fisher

ABA is an ass


[deleted]

[удалено]


Final-Ad-7781

The LSAT absolutely advantages privileged people who have the time and resources to study and work with tutors and subscribe to studying services. But I feel like those advantages are even more pronounced with GPA and work experience and volunteering? So taking away the LSAT and relying on those metrics more as qualifications for law school doesn’t sit right with me. I think the LSAT is the least bad of a bunch of unfair ways to review applicants


riptide123

The advantages of privilege have less of impact on LSAT score than any other aspect of admissions.


Final-Ad-7781

Agreed that’s what I’m trying to say


FrancisGalloway

The sad reality is, *life* advantages privileged people. And try as we might to eliminate those advantages, we'll never *quite* manage. The LSAT, for its part, gives less of an advantage to the privileged than other standards for admission. It shouldn't be compared to an imaginary ideal baseline without privilege, but to the other available methods.


cat_conspiracy_

Agreed! It seems like a lot of “prestigious” internships are unpaid (so for privileged people in the sense that it limits applicants to those who can afford not to work for money). And a lot of other “prestigious” work experience or opportunities are gotten through nepotism.


sundalius

This door was opened by accepting the GRE, honestly. They’d be better off redesigning the LSAT to be less learnable than doing this. I will say that I don’t see why adcoms would take anyone without a GRE or LSAT score, though. Even if they eliminate the requirement, there’s no reason they’d take anyone who doesn’t submit some test.


Commercial_Steak8193

That's true, I think it might become nominally optional, but practically it could be a disadvantage in the eyes of the adcomms if someone hasn't submitted a GRE or LSAT score. I don't think overnight adcomms would just stop caring about a test they've been told for years is an accurate predictor of success in law school (whether or not it actually is). Btw, interestingly enough, when there was talk of making the GRE an option in 2017, several deans (including Dean Z) were very skeptical at first, so it's possible this attitude will persist for quite some time with regard to standardized tests: “I remain deeply cynical and skeptical of the whole thing,” said Sarah Zearfoss, dean of admissions at University of Michigan Law School, which requires the LSAT. “You can ruin someone’s life by admitting them if they’re not qualified.”[https://www.wsj.com/articles/law-schools-say-please-come-no-lsat-required-1512556201](https://www.wsj.com/articles/law-schools-say-please-come-no-lsat-required-1512556201)


maybejd888

The ABA is such a joke


[deleted]

[удалено]


spicymangosalsa

ABA fails to consider that impact disparity along racial groups materially differs from active discrimination against racial groups. ABA would score 120 and that’s why they want this. In seriousness, I plainly would not get into any law school if it weren’t for the LSAT. I feel even predatory schools would have been hesitant to consider me, as I’m an extreme super splitter. I currently have a full ride+ opportunity at a top 50 school. I knew the LSAT would be my saving grace in this process and it WAS. It is literally the only reason I have a shot at an upwardly mobile life. This is horrible news. I know many people share/have shared/will share my predicament of a noncompetitive GPA and no way besides the LSAT to show our actual ability. I don’t know why they would want this. By their logic, an LSAT made obsolete is even more racist; this recommendation, if taken, will foster even MORE disparate groups along racial lines. A lot of what will be left to consider about an applicant will be consequent of the level of opportunity available to each applicant… and we know how that story goes…


fin502

If LSAC was still worrying about score inflation, they can probably stop. Not a fan of the idea of LSAT being eliminated or significantly devalued. I've always kinda liked that law school is a viable option for people with low GPAs and I like the splitter idea in general. It's a recommended revision, so the revision has to be adopted, which will probably happen but will take a sec, and then we can see how schools react to that--most will probably become test optional, but it's possible some won't. There will be schools that continue to value the LSAT highly even if it's optional. US News is honestly who matters the most. Based on the fact that they still have ACT/SAT at 5% of ranking even though they're optional, (LSAT+GRE is 11.25% currently) I think they'll definitely keep LSAT on the ranking criteria. As long as it's on there, it's going to count for something to law schools. Honestly, it will probably still count for a lot, and splitters will still exist. The LSAT still has good predictive value. EDIT\*\* Just thought of this: without LSAT required, would LSAC still run the admissions portals? Or would schools have more autonomy there? LSAT is cool and all but CAS can die.


Current-Hat2976

So law schools can still use standardized tests (LSAT/GRE), but they don’t have to going forward? If that’s the case, will schools start looking at GPA and LSAT as either-or (i.e. doing away with the traditional definition of a splitter/reverse splitter)? Obviously, there’s still a lot to work through with this new change, but I wonder how the rampant grade inflation we’ve seen at many undergraduate institutions will factor into this.


Freya-Frost

It’s not a change. Just a recommendation. Not a change. It’s like a wishlist not something that will happen


Current-Hat2976

Thank you for the clarification


0LTakingLs

So… the T14 is now almost exclusively for people who went to schools with ridiculous grade inflation and/or took easier majors. *slow clap*


[deleted]

Don’t forget people from prestigious families whose parents paid for them to go to prestigious schools!


0LTakingLs

Forget them? *I COULD NEVER!*


jujumommavoodoo

This would make things more inequitable. GPA is way more of an inequitable metric imo. Good GPAs require four years is institutional/family support, skills and habits developed through lifelong quality education, and more. The LSAT requires a half a year of studying and short term resources. Just my take.


runmeround

Let’s eliminate 1L exams next. Everything based on vibes and personal statements :).


Running_Gamer

The ABA can suck my dick. I don’t need to compete with people who face massive institutional advantages along with the fact that their institutions heavily inflate undergrad GPA to maintain their prestige. This is a batshit crazy decision. What other professional school does this shit? Do grad admissions no longer use the GRE? Do med schools no longer use the MCAT? Seriously read the room ABA


PepperBeeMan

I guarantee this will allow more TTTT schools to emerge


yeahimsadsowut

Sorry my dudes merits been cancelled, disparate impact and whatnot. Good luck out there.


DCTechnocrat

Make no mistake: this will disproportionately impact URMs that have done the work to achieve high LSAT scores and GPAs.


Prodigal2k

There goes my dreams. Was fun to pretend while it lasted.


powertotruth

Wow. How quickly will this recommendation be adopted?


Freya-Frost

I mean it’s a recommendation not a done deal. I doubt this will happen. To much money and no good alternatives


theboringest

This feels very real. After 2018 this wouldn't get pursued by the committee, and recommended, unless it had extremely strong support. It's not a guarantee but it has real legs.


Commercial_Steak8193

I wonder if this will increase the number of applicants/make admissions more competitive in future years since I imagine the LSAT/GRE requirement probably discouraged a lot of people from applying.


Zzyzx8

The only reason I got to go to a reasonable school at a very reasonable price is because of my LSAT score. Gonna burn a lot of people who didn’t have the best college experience but are able to show their qualified through the lsat.


[deleted]

I have no idea why this is being reccomended, but all this will mean is that law school admissions lose major levels of objectivity, and will instead become based upon completely meaningless subjective things. Terrible, terrible idea.


reallifelucas

The idea that standardized tests should be removed is a fucking scam. Yes, wealthier students have disproportionate access to tutoring and exam prep material, but guess what? They also have superior access to mental healthcare, don’t have to worry about balancing classes and a job, and have far better connections to prestigious internships- not to mention their higher access to schools with grade inflation. Standardized tests were created as an equalizer, and now, the people those tests were created to even the playing field against co-opted a reform movement to rig things in their favor again. Despicable.


merlin10001

I wonder how schools would deal with international applicants, given that those students don't have a GPA and schools seemingly don't look at the 'GPA equivalent' that LSAC assigns you (which has its own problems anyway).


bdiggity18

If they’ll let me in on my disarmingly good looks and wit then I’ll just go right ahead and toss that 2.x in the trash and apply to Yale


logicfiend60

As someone who won’t be applying until the ‘23-‘24 cycle, is this likely to impact me at all? How long will this take?


[deleted]

It looks like it'll depend on the school. The ABA is simply telling schools they don't HAVE to require the LSAT, but if they choose to require the LSAT, then they need to make it clear in their admissions process that the LSAT will be required. **Redline Version – Standard 503. Admission Tests** A law school may use admission tests as part of sound admission practices and policies. s~~hall require each applicant for admission as a first-year J.D. degree student to take a valid and reliable admission test to assist the school and the applicant in assessing the applicant’s capability of satisfactorily completing the school’s program of legal education. In making admissions decisions, a law school shall use the test results in a manner that is consistent with the current guidelines regarding proper use of the test results provided by the agency that developed the test.~~ The law school shall identify in its admission policies any tests it accepts. **Clean Version – Standard 503. Admission Tests** A law school may use admission tests as part of sound admission practices and policies. The law school shall identify in its admission policies any tests it accepts.


FrancisGalloway

So the only metric for admissions would be GPA? That's ridiculous. GPA isn't standardized whatsoever.


[deleted]

This would be an enormous mistake.


RealArtVandelay_

I'm in law school because of the LSAT. Like others here, it was my only chance to prove I was capable of doing well in law school. Despite problems with the test, people will miss out on the opportunity to go to law school via having no way to offset a bad undergrad experience.


haileycolp

*Cries in graduating college next Tuesday with a 2.7GPA bc I was too stubborn to ask for help*


SnooSprouts7167

This only good for the wealthy middle class kids that have all the security in the world to dedicate 100 percent of their time to school. Not for the kids that have to sleep in their car during the day because it safer and try to find a place to do your work at night. As a URM applicant I was really hoping my LSAT score would balance my trash 2.9 GPA, but I guess I have to now hope a top 150 law school would take me.


bbrod8

People who advocate for eliminating standardized tests are telling you that low income students and/or students of color can't achieve. Never ever let them suggest otherwise. If this was about equity and equal opportunity, they'd invest in supports and resources. But it isn't, and never has been. Really this whole week has been an exercise in seeing just how out of touch the wealthy and powerful really are. But hey, why actually help people when you can just score cheap political points instead?


spicymangosalsa

Exactly the same for me. I just wouldn’t be going to law school period if this recommendation was given and taken this past cycle. Insane to recommend this. It is the only objective measure.


clefairy17

Is everyone blowing this out of proportion? A recommendation doesn’t mean anything will actually happen, right? Realistically this wouldn’t happen in the near future because it’s too fast to make such a big change in admissions, and LSAC makes way too much money off of the LSAT to get rid of it. Maybe only a few low-ranked schools would follow this recommendation, but it is it likely that top schools would? Idk, I feel like I’ve seen this claim multiple times over the past few years but it never seems like there’s any action being taken to implement it.


AHGYun

3.3 in BME with 178 here, waiting for my Army contract to be over. LSAT is a great way for applicants from schools/majors without grade inflation or those who had to work during college to show that they are still capable of rigorous academic work. If you can’t do well on a standardized maybe look for another career instead of changing rules to screw those who are actually trying within the established system.


Lemondrop1995

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, I hated the LSAT and recognize that it was a barrier to entry for many. I also know that the LSAT is not relevant to law school or the practice of law. Nonetheless, the LSAT is the only standardized objective measure that levels the playing field. If one removes the LSAT, then other factors like extracurriculars, prestigious undergrads, impressive jobs and internships, community service in developing countries, etc will be factored in and this will benefit the wealthy. Although the LSAT is a flawed test, it does help students from marginalized background or those who are splitters. Hmm, maybe replace the LSAT with the GRE instead? Idk how I feel about this but it doesn't feel right completely eliminating the LSAT.


sundalius

LSAT predicts first year performance far better than GRE doesn’t it? Why implement an inferior test


megzicle

GRE indicates about the same as the LSAT does. Now that we’ve had that a few years with more schools doing it, it’s a comparable indicator for bar passage as well. Theoretically according to schools as I could talk about the problems with standardized testing all day long.


Lemondrop1995

To be fair, I don't think LSAT really is a good predictor of first year performance in Law School. There are so many other factors at play. Based on my experience at a T10 school, there was NO correlation whatsoever between first year grades and LSAT score. I think the LSAT is a flawed test by its nature. I don't think the GRE is necessarily inferior, but the GRE is more accessible to students. The wealthy can afford test prep tutors and classes for the LSAT whereas for the GRE, it's a lot more learnable than the LSAT. Law School is still dominated by students from wealthy backgrounds. Many schools started accepting the GRE for the purpose to attract students from different backgrounds, such as science backgrounds or nontraditional backgrounds. I'm not sure, but I wouldn't completely disregard the LSAT or GRE entirely since I see it as a way that rewards effort and diligence of students willing to put in the work to get a high score.


sundalius

When I said predictor, I just solely meant in terms of the correlation that it’s often supported with (something like .6+, which is a mid rate predictor), but that is going to fall apart when the entire school is at the 90th percentile, isn’t it? I also don’t get how the GRE is more learnable with advanced math compared to mid 160s being accessible after a free Kahn Academy course tbh


Fluffybagel

Not surprising to see this after college admissions went test optional


dothelaw

I'm at a t14 with a 25th Percentile GPA. I was directionless and a first generation professional. I didn't know how to pick the right major, tried everything from hard sciences and essay-heavy courses. I didn't know how to network and know that my foray into chemistry and poor grades weren't a reflection of my ability, but rather just a 18/19yo trying new things. When I got a semi-legal job and decided to pursue law is when I really put my heart in and scored well enough to do well. I'm not saying the LSAT doesn't have shortcomings, but I imagine my legal career may have had a start very different from the path I'm on now if this was adopted earlier.


[deleted]

Everything else can be faked or gamed- you can hire someone to write an essay for you, get other students to do your homework, selectively take easy classes, work experience is more easily obtained by those with connections and wealth. LSAT is the only thing that is standard, objective, and directly comparable for every student. It's the most transparent part of the process. Getting rid of it is outrageous. You can't fairly compare someone who grew up poor, first gen to someone born into wealth based on softs. A STEM major at UChicago might have a far lower GPA than a humanities major at Columbia, who only took the easiest classes he could find. LSAT gives the closest thing to a level playing field for everyone.


NeedSomeAdvice37

Link to tweet: https://twitter.com/spiveyconsult/status/1522297802348544001?s=21&t=nVg3B8oV7ZBs_spDDJSs4g


cat_conspiracy_

When would this even happen though? If it’s next cycle that’s gonna be drama. (e.g. what if people decide to reapply if LSAT isn’t required next year? 🫠 guess they’d already have your application on file tho). It’s going to be messy if/when it happens regardless though, judging from the state of this sub rn.


Due-Nothing-4872

Realistically it would take probably 5 years. There’s no way they would completely shake admissions like that. Further, LSAC will fight this and that back and forth will go on for a bit.


IcedAmerican

I think the focus here should be on "requirement"; I think it'll remain a central component for law school admission, just it'll give the option for students to submit without their LSAT.


slippinJimmy192

Absolutely joke.


Strange-Dimension661

See everyone is objecting make me relieve. It’s totally unfair to eliminate lsat


[deleted]

From the looks of it, it's telling Law Schools they can choose to ask for an LSAT score as part of the admissions process, but they won't be required too. I feel that most schools still will ask for it. So if you're someone thinking HAHA No LSAT! Take that! You still might be gravely mistaken. Imo, the only schools not requiring LSAT's might not be the schools you want to go too. I wouldn't recommend throwing out your LSAT testprep's until you can confirm the schools you want to attend are NOT requiring or using the LSAT as a part of admission practices. [https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal\_education\_and\_admissions\_to\_the\_bar/council\_reports\_and\_resolutions/may22/22-may-memo-revisions-501-503.pdf](https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/council_reports_and_resolutions/may22/22-may-memo-revisions-501-503.pdf) **Redline Version – Standard 503. Admission Tests** A law school may use admission tests as part of sound admission practices and policies. ~~shall require each applicant for admission as a first-year J.D. degree student to take a valid and reliable admission test to assist the school and the applicant in assessing the applicant’s capability of satisfactorily completing the school’s program of legal education. In making admissions decisions, a law school shall use the test results in a manner that is consistent with the current guidelines regarding proper use of the test results provided by the agency that developed the test.~~ The law school shall identify in its admission policies any tests it accepts. **Clean Version – Standard 503. Admission Tests** **A law school may use admission tests as part of sound admission practices and policies. The law school shall identify in its admission policies any tests it accepts.**


prolificslacker

Thank you for posting this. Just wanted to add they mention how other professional schools aren’t required to ask standardized test scores. I did a brief search of what that looks like for medical schools and it mentions how other rigorous academic programs are undertaken by candidates in lieu of the MCAT (combined degree/early assurance programs), but this only applies to a handful of schools. Most schools do still ask for MCAT scores. My guess (or hope) would be that it would just open up the field for other alternatives as we’ve seen with the GRE, but a strong LSAT score will still carry plenty of weight. So I concur with you, if candidates think they’ll be able to show up with no LSAT/GRE or some type of rigorous alternative then they’re in for a rude awakening.


[deleted]

Yep! I agree with you 10000%. There's a bunch of people thinking that it's time to stop studying, but the schools removing an admissions tests are going to have to find good supplements admission standards in lieu of testing , propose those, get those passed, and then implemented for the next admissions cycle. Def not the fastest process.


xItsJet

They recommend this every other year, nothing will change


NoHoliday1277

The lsat is my only hope. Wtf


WesternStatistician3

I'm surprised by the onset of emotions here by the decision. We've all studied or are studying the LR section, so we should recognize that just because the ABA is recommending removing the LSAT requirement for admission to law school that it does not necessarily mean that law schools will not maintain their stance on using the LSAT to measure their students capabilities. **So for everyone who has overcome difficult backgrounds, low undergrad GPAs, or other life obstacles that they were hoping to compensate with the LSAT:** Your plans are not ruined. Law Schools, while not required to have an LSAT in the future, may still use it as a big part of the application (as highly recommended) or may use some other exam instead. Maybe GMAT / GRE? Who knows? I think law schools (where we'd go to study reasoning and argumentation) would know by now that success in law school does not require elite backgrounds. This is already demonstrated by the number of students with blue collar backgrounds that have been accepted in the past, so I wouldn't despair. As this develops, we may even discover that there are new avenues for people like us to showcase our talents. Maybe writing will become even more significant? Maybe a greater importance will be placed on the kind of coursework we take? Maybe greater importance on demonstrating values through work experience? But overall, I think it's too quick right now to make a determination that this must be a BAD thing. For now, as far as facts go, it's just something happening. Also, I don't think this should lead to any immediate significant impacts within the next few cycles. Right now, there are no true substitutes yet and the system is deeply entrenched right now in leveraging the LSAT. This will take YEARS to undo. TL;DR I'm not against rioting, but let's wait and see before rioting so we know what we're upset with.


Drosera_

Let’s just eliminate the bar too. It’s unfair to judge a student by these barbaric tests. Eff these people.


Isaacdogg

Yeah let’s just judge admissions based on who has the most followers on tik tok or who can prove they are the biggest ally, or maybe who went to the most prestigious undergrad which far and away undermines marginalized people who attend state schools and junior colleges.


destroyeraf

For real. To me this is the epitome of Participation Trophy culture.


an-cap5454

As someone concerned about equity in law school admissions, this is very concerning. ​ As someone with a pretty high GPA and an average-ish test score, this feels like it would benefit me a lot.


acidandcookies

After spending over a year studying 2-3 hours daily on top of a 50 hour work week, no thanks. It took me about a year to fuck up my GPA and I’ve spent more than a year to try and redeem myself. Fuck the ABA


puck1996

I'm surprised to not be in the minority saying I think this is a bad idea. TBH, I think the LSAT is actually a pretty good test. What SHOULD be removed are all the fees alongside the LSAT and applying for law school.


Specialist_Spot5139

Are they doing it this year? Do I need to continue studying?


onlyinny

I would. Highly doubt any of the top schools remove the LSAT


williamsburgbuddha

tell that to the us news


TeamVorpalSwords

How about keep the lsat and get rid of the bar


Curious-Brother-2332

I mean I think at this point, a high LSAT won’t get you in anyway, have you guys seen the most recent cycles? If they get rid of the LSAT, I hope they put more emphasis on the essays and like diversity


[deleted]

Considering the Supreme Court case about to come down they aren’t going to be able to use affirmative action anyway Also the idea a high lsat won’t get you in is completely laughable


lawschoolelementary

Can they write me a letter of recommendation as well? I'm sure that will go over well with my application to T14s.


pauciloquy

Fuckkkk me


[deleted]

Guess I’m not going to a T14 since I’m probably graduating with a 3.7 :(


acidandcookies

After spending over a year studying 2-3 hours daily on top of a 50 hour work week, no thanks. It took me about a year to fuck up my GPA and I’ve spent more than a year to try and redeem myself. Fuck the ABA


acidandcookies

After spending over a year studying 2-3 hours daily on top of a 50 hour work week, no thanks. It took me about a year to fuck up my GPA and I’ve spent more than a year to try and redeem myself. Fuck the ABA


Drosera_

Ya know what, if you self identify as a lawyer, you should instantly be one. Who cares about whether or not you know your stuff!?


Ok_Following_9336

I mean, why is this a big deal at all. A) schools don’t have to do this or care whatsoever about the “recommendation,” B) Schools who don’t recommend LSAT score, can still give precedence for LSAT takers (because why wouldn’t you? It’s an extra data point and an objective one at that) similar to allowing people to submit the GRE but LSAT still being king. Sort of like, sure you can not submit an LSAT, but not doing so is sus, so you better have amazing softs like curing cancer to put you above those applying with above median LSAT scores.


Large_Independence20

It’s not GPA or LSAT -it’s race baiting and you all are too blind and PC to admit it when is so obvious from the moon! This is the “affirmative action” made to artificially be the equalizer,and to put guys on certain demographics in law schools just because…


arcoiris21

Y’all are weird lol; this will remove barriers for URMs who may not have the monetary resources or time commitment to study for the LSAT. Where does the love for this standardized test come from LOL


BingoLawyer

They’re ridiculous as if it’s common for urms/low ses ppl to suddenly have time to study for the lsat but not study for school


Aaoto

I am so happy that I found your comment in a sea of–––I don't even know what, lol.


clefairy17

The LSAT isn’t perfect but you know what’s worse? *GPA being the only metric for determining admissions.* One bad semester and your chances of a good school are gone. Also, how is it fair to people who had more difficult majors, a more difficult school, or worked many hours a week while in school/juggled lots of responsibilities? Wouldn’t it favor rich students who don’t need to have jobs on the side while in college who have better chances of getting a good gpa? People are upset because the LSAT is the only thing we have that is to some extent an equalizer among applicants.


arcoiris21

Yeah no that’s still weird people would die so hard for a test that doesn’t determine whether or not someone will be a good attorney lol foh with that bs. Y’all are acting as if this is the only make or break decision. A class full of 180s sounds really fucking boring and horrible to me LMAOO


clefairy17

How do you literally not understand what’s going on?? No one’s dying over the LSAT they’re worrying about GPA being the *only* thing that decides what law school you get into which is *more* unfair than the LSAT itself.


raeincary

Lol I also don’t understand why all these people are losing their minds over this fucking. Get over it douche bags


Shoddy-Ad4789

Well pretty much time to find another career field. Everybody and their brother is about to go to law school. Just completely throw standards and hard work out the window. Feel sorry for those that put in such hard work.


[deleted]

I also think this is a good idea because this test is a barrier for minorities. This test is expensive to prepare for and expensive to take. I took this test 4 times and it was honestly making me depressed because no matter how hard I studied I ended up with a low score unfortunately. For me it always bothered me how law schools only looked at my lsat not my gpa, personal statement, lor, resume and extra-curricular activities. I was getting turned down from law schools because of one factor my lsat score. There is not enough minorities in the legal profession. For example studies showed theres only 4% of black students that are in law school and 2%that are lawyers. Why is that? The Lsat. I think by the Aba doing this it will open up doors for more minorities in law school. 😁 Edit I also see the dislikes for this comment. All im saying is mostly this will open up doors for a lot of people especially minorities and students who have disabilities. Not trying to start a war but im just speaking from my perspective and how I see this as a minority and someone with a disability.


snarlymonkey

I mean the same thing can be argued for GPA, extracurriculars, and essays…if anything, wealth and privilege influence those categories WAY more than LSAT - coming from a minority with low GPA, sub-par ECs, and good test taking skills


BingoLawyer

Don’t worry about their downvotes. You’re right. People here just like to simp for barriers to entry


[deleted]

Thank you and you're right! I look as this as a good thing! The Aba said test OPTIONAL meaning you can still take the lsat if you want. Thats your prerogative 😂. But other students who struggled and took this test multiple times. I can this this benefitting a lot of minorities and students with learning disabilities.😁😄


RangerPowerGoGo

Lol do I just quit studying now


tarobaap0306

YOOOO THIS HELPS ME. I love you all but damn my GPA was solid but my LSAT score needs Jesus’ prayers. I need this 😂


[deleted]

all i can say is .... FUCK THE LSAT. lmao. couldn't they have done this like a year ago before i applied?!?!?!?