How to get into law school by acing the GRE and avoiding the LSAT

Except not really...


I’ve been teaching the LSAT for over 10 years now. This exam's how I make my living, but I'm also completely obsessed with it. I have a (dare-I-say) IRRATIONAL love for this test.

The GRE’s a much easier exam, and it’s much easier to get a higher-percentile score on it than on the LSAT.

So, why would I recommend taking the GRE when it’s in my best interest for more people to take the LSAT?

Because, if you’re reading this, there’s a decent chance you just googled something about getting into law school by taking the GRE.

You’re *PROBABLY* not one of my long-time students.

Maybe you’re a wannabe lawyer considering law school and think you can avoid the LSAT beast by doing GRE vocabulary flash cards and brushing up on middle-school math.

If that’s you…

Please stop reading my site right now.

Obviously, Harvard requires a super-high GPA and top score on whichever test scores you submit, LSAT, GRE, GMAT, MCAT, PCAT and all the other XXATs out there.

And law schools KNOW it's easier to get a high-percentile score on the GRE because the competition isn't as tough.


(That's a kind-of nice way of saying the people who typically take the GRE aren't as good at standardized tests.)


***A senior LSAC employee actually refused to take the GRE because "it didn't measure anything important."***

!!!


If you’ve got a decent chance of getting into a top law school, you probably COULD ace the LSAT if you put in the work. This requires…*learning the LSAT the hard way* (shudders)

But don’t worry - it’s actually the EZ way in the long run.

That’s what I focus on in my courses - helping you get the LSAT mindset by showing you how the test-makers think.

You won’t find the typical “cheap trix” that only get you high 150s / low 160s.

A lot of the lower-tier law schools that’ll eventually take the GRE as an alternative don’t actually plan to accept “LSAT-avoiders.” They actually just want to accept applications from GRE-takers so they can deny you and boost get a boost in the US News rankings by increasing their selectivity.

So, if you want to avoid the LSAT “monster” (yeah, that’s how I used to see it, too), because you’re lazy and don’t want to put in the work, please go ahead and click the X in your browser and stop reading. Get a bunch of flash cards and find a high school kid to tutor you in algebra.

Call me old-fashioned, but I’ve always believed you get out what you put in…and taking “shortcuts” won’t get you where you want to go. My site's the oldest (and still continuously running) LSAT Blog because I show you how to DEFEAT the LSAT monster by actually looking at the LSAT from the test-makers perspective,

Cheap trix, are just that - “cheap” and “trix.” I’ve always believed you get what you pay for, you get out what you put in. If you’re not willing to invest in yourself, law schools aren’t going to, either.

If you’re ready to take the first step towards tackling the LSAT, and you’re ambitious enough to take on this challenge, you should join my private community of LSAT students. It’s a free email course where you'll hear from me every now and then with my best LSAT advice - the stuff too classy to share with all the curiosity-seekers driving by through Google searches.

So,  if you haven’t already, take action and click here to join thousands of other students fighting to conquer the LSAT. I’ll never spam you, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Very truly yours,
Steve Schwartz


P.S. Seriously, you should join. You’ll get all the stuff I’m not willing to share with the randos who find me from Google and message boards.

Harvard Law Accepting GRE Scores: An LSAT-Style Logical Fallacy

In the days since Harvard Law announced their decision to start accepting GRE scores, I've wondered if perhaps I was being unfair in my analysis - maybe Harvard does really want more international applicants, engineers, etc. for the sake of diversifying the student body.

And, yes, it's true, the change will lead to a wider and more diverse pool...but I can't shake the nagging feeling that something's fishy going on here.

Because, despite all that:

They haven't adequately made the argument that the GRE is a valid predictor of 1L grades the way the LSAT is!

The study they used to support their claim that the GRE is an equally valid predictor of 1L grades was only based on a sample of current and former HLS students (details here). This is a population likely to do well on a variety of standardized tests and likely to do well in law school - and they didn't study any other group!

To describe it in more formal terms, their argument is strictly correlational within a group of high-achieving, high-aptitude Harvard Law students - there's no control group! As a result, there's no way we can to separate those with only great test scores on each exam from those with only high GPAs and predict each group's 1L grades.

In short, from the information they've released, there's no indication they've made a rigorous attempt to study the GRE's validity as a standardized test independently of their own population.


To me, this suggests they're doing this for more self-interested reasons - rankings, applicant pool size, etc. In fact, I believe HLS hasn't attempted to demonstrate the GRE's predictive validity because they know (or at least suspect) that the GRE isn't an equally valid predictor of 1L grades. My guess is they expect the ABA to allow it anyway because law schools need the applicants. (And, if so, they're probably right about this.)


Why does this all matter? Who cares if the LSAT's a better indicator of 1L grades?

Because while anyone Harvard admits will likely be fine in the end, this change will create a domino effect at other lower-tier schools as they take advantage of the opportunity to expand their class sizes without suffering in the US News rankings.

The LSAT is almost certainly a better indicator of 1L grades - it functions as a barrier to prevent the admission of students likely to flunk out.

Similarly, it's likely a better indicator of students' ability to pass the bar exam - acting as a barrier to prevent the admission of students who might waste 3 years of their lives and over $100,000 in tuition money, yet still not be able to practice law in the end.

Top-tier applicants will likely still opt for the LSAT because they want to show they can ace it, while those who find it more difficult will do their best on the GRE. And many students will likely take both exams just to see which one they have more initial aptitude for. While math-phobia may deter some students from trying the GRE, I can't help wondering whether "Games-phobia" will deter applicants from the LSAT. Only time will tell.

Harvard Law Accepting the GRE: Will Students Stop Taking the LSAT?

UPDATE: LSAT vs GRE: Will Students Choose GRE for Law School Admissions?

***

I previously wrote about Harvard Law's frankly-BS (pardon my French) argument for adding the GRE option, but I wanted to briefly answer another pressing question:

(This one's especially for my colleagues in the LSAT biz, and fellow LSAT lovers.)


Will the LSAT's popularity drop significantly over the next few years? Is it time to start brushing up on random-ass vocabulary words and middle-school math?

Let's look at what happened to the number of GMAT exams administered after business schools started accepting the GRE:

* 265,613 GMAT exams administered from July 2008- June 2009.

* 261,248 GMAT exams administered from July 2015 - June 2016.

The bottom line: Despite the GRE's widespread adoption in that market (starting in 2006), GMAT test administrations are still around the recent baseline average from 2008-2013.


See below graph from this article:

(Note: Top business schools began accepting GRE scores as an alternative to the GMAT in 2006, so this chart reflects the competition between the two exams. And, for those wondering, the GMAT spike in 2011-12, and subsequent drop, was due to students taking it early to avoid an impending change to the test that occurred in the 2012-13 cycle.)

It'll likely take a few years for the full consequences of this change to play out, and if anything, it'll most likely lead to more law school applicants overall (not necessarily a significant decline in LSAT takers). Many people will take both, or at least look at both, and see where they do better percentile-wise...

Ironically, if anything, this will lead students to spend more on test prep, since many will take both the LSAT and the GRE. By "increasing access to legal education," law schools are the only winners here.


Further Reading:

LSAT Blog: Harvard Law Accepting GRE Scores: An LSAT-Style Logical Fallacy

Harvard Law Drops LSAT Requirement, Takes GRE for Law School Admission

UPDATE: Harvard Law Accepting the GRE: Will Students Stop Taking the LSAT?

***

Lots of LSAT news lately:

1. The Khan Academy is coming out with an LSAT prep product next year.

2. Harvard Law will start to accept the GRE as an alternative.


The silver lining on Harvard Law taking the GRE:

I'm not happy about the Harvard/GRE change overall, but I suppose the silver lining for me is the schadenfreude of seeing LSAC (the people who make the LSAT) get some serious competition from the GRE.

LSAC has been slow to computerize the LSAT and, as a result, still only offers it 4 times a year!

So, if something goes wrong with one test administration, students have to wait several months.

This has hurt an ENORMOUS percentage of students over the years.

Additionally the policies on test postponement/withdrawal/cancellation (and associated fees) have been harsh - students who can't really afford all the fees still have to shell out money to the LSAC monopoly as they postpone in their test dates, prepare for retakes, etc.

So, mayyyybeeee LSAC will loosen up a bit and become more consumer-friendly as a result. Could they increase the speed of computerizing the LSAT, be more flexible on test changes, etc.? We'll see.


Harvard's (flawed) argument for accepting GRE scores for law school admission:

LSAC is the bureaucracy we all love to hate, but their massive army of nerds does manage to consistently produce a great test year after year.

I'm very surprised to hear the claim that the GRE is an equally valid predictor of 1L grades as the LSAT - I think the LSAT is a much better test overall, and especially so for law school admission purposes.


Maybe I'm biased - after all, I do love the LSAT and am kinda obsessed with it - but no other test comes even close to the LSAT's sophistication.

AND, if one does, I'd begrudgingly admit it's the GMAT with its Critical Reasoning and Data Sufficiency questions.

I've often thought the GRE is a lazy test: re-using SAT-style content for all different grad school programs? Srsly?

Most of it has little relevance to legal reasoning. Could the GRE really apply THAT well to what's needed for such a large variety of graduate-level programs?


*** We're now living in a world where someone can get a JD/MBA from Harvard Law without taking either the LSAT or the GMAT - two of the best graduate school admission tests out there! ***


For Harvard, I think this is mainly an effort to get more high-achieving students, given the decline in 170+ applicants. It may spread across T14, then ripple down to the others. The biggest negative consequences would be for the students at the lower end of the spectrum who won't be able to pass the bar.

Harvard talked about "increasing access to legal education." I think this is code for "let's keep low-end law schools in business by allowing 'access' to customers who shouldn't be going at all."

So...."access to legal education" = "access to law school debt"

At the same time, higher-end schools will have more access to smart students in the arms race for a leg up the rankings, and potentially allow them to increase their class sizes, bar passage rates, and tuition $$$ as well.


More reasons why the "access to legal education" argument doesn't work:

There's more free LSAT content out there than ever before - the rate at which it's added has increased significantly over the past few years as companies offer free content to attract students to their paid offerings. Khan Academy for LSAT will be yet another addition, but it would've had a much bigger impact if it came out 5-10 years ago.

It's always nice to have another option, but it's much less "necessary" than ever before. Free LSAT prep is widely available. An Internet-savvy student could fully prepare without spending a dime.



What will the future bring?

I'll be curious to see what happens with the GRE and law school admissions over the next few years, but I don't think anyone applying this cycle (or anyone working in the LSAT industry) has to worry too much about it for now.

It's easy to imagine the worst case scenario (massive drop in LSAT test-takers), but let's wait and see if other top schools actually start allowing the option as well.


Bottom line:

Could it simply be that even top law schools just don't care that much about which test they accept (assuming some minimal standard of quality)?

Do they just want the testing process to be as smooth as possible for consumers (errr...students) in order to increase:

* size of applicant pool
* selectivity
* yield
* US News rankings
* class size / tuition $$$

Sadly, I think "yes."

***

Further Reading:

LSAT Blog: Harvard Law Accepting the GRE: Will Students Stop Taking the LSAT?

LSAT Blog: Harvard Law Accepting GRE Scores: An LSAT-Style Logical Fallacy

Above the Law: Harvard Will Make It Easier For People Who Won’t Get Into Harvard To Be Taken Advantage Of