LSAC Expands LSAT Schedule: Adds November + March LSATs

On June 1, 2017, LSAC announced that from June 2018 - June 2019, it will administer the LSAT six times!

They've evened-out the schedule so there's an LSAT test date approximately every 2-3 months.

2018–2019 LSAT DATES
Monday, June 11, 2018 12:30 PM 

Saturday, September 8, 2018 8:30 AM
Wednesday, September 5, 2018 (Saturday Sabbath Observers) 8:30 AM 

Saturday, November 17, 2018 8:30 AM
Monday, November 19, 2018 (Saturday Sabbath Observers) 8:30 AM 

Saturday, January 26, 2019 8:30 AM
Monday, January 28, 2019 (Saturday Sabbath Observers) 8:30 AM 

Saturday, March 30, 2019 8:30 AM
Monday, April 1, 2019 (Saturday Sabbath Observers) 8:30 AM 

Monday, June 3, 2019 12:30 PM

(LSAC has not yet revealed which tests will be disclosed.)

Previously, students only had four opportunities to take the LSAT - early February, early-mid June, late September/early October, and early December.

This left students sometimes waiting more than 4 months for an opportunity to take the LSAT. Compare this with the GRE, where students can take it on virtually any weekday, year-round.

For the 2018-2019 testing cycle, students have six opportunities to take the LSAT, and never have to wait even three months to take it. Good news if things don't go well on Test Day and you have to retake.

And, this comes right after LSAC removed any limit on how many times students can take the LSAT in a 2-year period (used to be a maximum of 3 times).

This is great news for students, and it'll allow the LSAT to better compete with the potential spread of the GRE to law schools besides Harvard.

Kudos to LSAC for making this change.


Now, some people were confused (me too, at first!)

Those paying close attention might notice it seems like it's not really an increase from 4 administrations per year to 6 per year.

Why?

Because June was listed twice for 2018-2019!

* June
* September
* November
* January
* March
* June


However, LSAC has confirmed that it just looks weird because 2018 - 2019 is a "transitional year."

The "2019-2020 Testing Year" will start in July with the July 2019 LSAT.

Presumably, it will contain these test administrations:

* July
* September
* November
* January
* March
* June




Here's the full press release straight from LSAC:

NEWTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA, June 1—Prospective law students will have more opportunities to take the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) starting in mid-2018. The Law School Admission Council announced today an expanded testing schedule that will increase testing dates from four to six annually. 

The additional LSAT dates were announced at LSAC’s Annual Meeting and Educational Conference, which is taking place this week in Palm Desert, California. Attendees include representatives from LSAC’s member law schools, who participate in professional development, networking, and opportunities to discuss and provide feedback on LSAC’s legal education services, including the LSAT. 

“The additional test dates are an important part of LSAC’s continuing efforts to reduce barriers to entry into legal education,” Dean Susan L. Krinsky, chair of LSAC’s Board of Trustees said. “The LSAT has always been the most valid, reliable, and widely used test in law school admissions. It is the best test for predicting success in law school, and therefore LSAC constantly explores ways to improve its delivery. We will continue to look for innovative ways to enhance access and diversity in legal education, while ensuring the quality of both the LSAT and all the services we offer.” 

The more flexible testing schedule will benefit both prospective law students, who will have more options if they have a conflict with a particular test date, and law schools, whose application cycles have shifted in recent years. 

The expansion of LSAT test dates is the latest of several test-related initiatives LSAC has announced over the last several months. Earlier in May, it announced that there will no longer be limitations on the number of times a test taker can sit for the LSAT in a two-year period. LSAC also conducted a successful pilot of a Digital LSAT in May as part of its research into student-friendly alternative testing models. And in February, LSAC entered into an innovative partnership with Khan Academy to develop interactive online materials for the LSAT, and make personalized practice free for all. 

LSAC also recently made a significant investment in the Council on Legal Education Opportunity, Inc. (CLEO), to assist in that organization’s efforts to advance the diversity of the legal profession.

And here's the full LSAT schedule they just published (PDF):

(2018 - 2019 contains the important changes.)

2017–2018 LSAT DATES 

Monday, June 12, 2017 12:30 PM 

Saturday, September 16, 2017 8:30 AM
Monday, September 18, 2017 (Saturday Sabbath Observers) 8:30 AM 

Saturday, December 2, 2017 8:30 AM
Monday, December 4, 2017 (Saturday Sabbath Observers) 8:30 AM 

Saturday, February 10, 2018 8:30 AM
Monday, February 12, 2018 (Saturday Sabbath Observers) 8:30 AM

2018–2019 LSAT DATES
Monday, June 11, 2018 12:30 PM 

Saturday, September 8, 2018 8:30 AM
Wednesday, September 5, 2018 (Saturday Sabbath Observers) 8:30 AM 

Saturday, November 17, 2018 8:30 AM
Monday, November 19, 2018 (Saturday Sabbath Observers) 8:30 AM 

Saturday, January 26, 2019 8:30 AM
Monday, January 28, 2019 (Saturday Sabbath Observers) 8:30 AM 

Saturday, March 30, 2019 8:30 AM
Monday, April 1, 2019 (Saturday Sabbath Observers) 8:30 AM 

Monday, June 3, 2019 12:30 PM

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.

LSAT Diary: Greatest Lesson from Studying, and Focusing on Logic Games

This installment of LSAT Diaries comes from Ryle, who improved from the 155 to a 164 on the February 2017 LSAT after taking the Starter LSAT Course and focusing on Logic Games. That's nearly a 10-point increase!

If you want to be in LSAT Diaries, please email me at LSATUnplugged@gmail.com. (You can be in LSAT Diaries whether you've taken the exam already or not.)

Thanks to Ryle for sharing his experience and advice!

***

Ryle's LSAT Diary:

Hi all! My name is Ryle Cameron. I was an English student at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, where I spent 4 years loathing most of my English courses and enjoying most everything else - hindsight is 20/20. I took a mock LSAT through Princeton Review at the beginning of my third year, which I used to diagnose my strengths and weaknesses regarding the LSAT. I was pleasantly surprised with a 155. Reading Comprehension was my strongest, while Logic Games were my weakest. No surprise there.

Fast-forward about a year and a half to when I took 5 weeks off at the start of 2017 to study for the February LSAT. This is not doable for many, but it would (obviously) be ideal if you could. I can't help you with that, but I can at least detail what I did and my reasons for doing so.

I was told about the LSAT Blog by friends who had either completed law school or were in the process thereof, and had found the site and resources extremely useful. I decided to buy the most basic package because, I reasoned, I either a) study as best as I could and spend ~$500 Cdn. to write the test a couple of times; or b) spend the same amount to get some help to focus my time, and, (I hoped) only write once.

The 4-week calendar was the most helpful piece of the package to me. Instead of having to chase down questions of the same type to practice on, I had them all listed and in manageable amounts in front of me. I followed it to a tee for the first 2.5 weeks (focusing on Logic Games), then more loosely for the next 2.5 as I wrote full practice tests and eventually timed, test-day scenario tests (with the recommended geek-watch, which was helpful).

Perhaps the greatest lesson I learned was to not get too high from a great mark, and too low from a poor one. I averaged a 159 on my practices, which was discouraging; I needed a higher mark to balance out my poorer GPA. The last practice I wrote before test day was a 166; great news! ...except that it was practice - so while I was happy I achieved that, it really meant nothing to my test day.

This may rub some of you the wrong way, and I don't include it to give the impression that because I am a Christian, God gave me the mark I received. However, as I Christian I took great comfort in the fact that I needn't worry about the test. As a result, I was slightly anxious heading into the test and only determined by the start of it. I was confident in my preparation and could leave the results to God. As it turned out, I received a 164, which I am very thankful to the Lord for; I believe it good enough to balance my GPA and be competitive.

I plan on applying to law school for 2018, and possibly deferring to 2019 (pending acceptance, of course) if I decide to pursue a Masters degree first.

Digital LSAT Uses Samsung Tablets, Reuses Test Questions

A recent article in the National Law Journal (alternate link) gave some more juicy details on the upcoming computerization / digitization of the LSAT.

As I've previously written, there will be a digital LSAT pilot test on May 20.

LSAC will provide Samsung tablets connected to a "hub computer" at the test center, so you won't be taking the LSAT on a computer or an iPad.


Some details from the National Law Journal (emphasis added):

Each testing center will be equipped with a hub computer, or “mother ship” as the LSAC’s technology team has dubbed them, which will communicate with the Samsung tablets provided to each test taker. The test questions will only be available on the hubs and tablets during the actual test and are heavily encrypted. Stealing a tablet or hub computer would be useless to anyone hoping to get their hands on the questions early, Lowry said.

Purchasing the tablets and developing the testing system required a significant upfront investment by the LSAC, he added. 

“Because we reuse test items, it’s really important that we have rock-solid security,” Lowry said. “We just didn’t think that the, ‘bring your own computer’ model would be secure enough.”

Unsurprisingly, LSAC is incredibly concerned about test security, as always. This has been one of the barriers to computerizing the LSAT for a while. If LSAC's going to computerize or "tablet-ize" the LSAT, they want to do it right.

One of the most interesting details of all, though, is that LSAC announced they'll be reusing test questions for the digital LSAT. Up to this point, they've only reused questions from unreleased exams (the undisclosed February LSATs, overseas administrations, Sabbath observers' administrations, etc.)


Does this mean once the LSAT is administered via tablet:

1. they'll stop releasing numbered PrepTests?

2. your friend could takes the LSAT on Monday, you take it on Tuesday, and you see some of the same questions?

3. people more familiar with Samsung tablets will have an advantage?

4. LSAC will release practice exams in an interactive, tablet-friendly digital format?

5. you'll get your answers immediately?

6. you'll be able to take the LSAT almost anytime?

7. the LSAT will reduce competition from the GRE?


Lots of questions, not many answers, at least right now.


Some speculation on these questions:

1. Releasing numbered PrepTests: My guess is that LSAC will continue to release numbered PrepTests until the test is only available on tablet (assuming they switch 100% to tablet-based administrations). They'll probably release the occasional "Official Guide" with a few full-length practice tests to reflect any minor changes to the test.


2. Reusing questions: Because they will re-use questions (just like the GMAT and GRE), you may see the same questions as your friend on different days, but because the pool of questions will be very large, that's not likely to be a major issue. If anyone can master the statistics necessary to avoid cheating aka "contamination," it's the psychometrician geniuses at LSAC.


3. Familiarity with Samsung tablets: Familiarity with the technology will probably help, but I'm guessing the tablets will be simple-enough to use for most people that familiarity with Samsung tablets, or tablets in general, won't be a huge advantage.


4. Releasing interactive practice tests: LSAC may or may not not release interactive tablet-friendly digital PrepTests for Samsung, iPad, etc. to help with studying, but they'll probably release a handful of interactive practice exams*. Even if you don't have a tablet, it'd probably help to be able to practice on a smartphone, especially if you have one with a large screen.

It'd be great if they did release a digital practice test for mobile devices, but I wouldn't count on it happening in the short-term.

When LSAC moves, they move slowly and deliberately. This makes sense for something like test security, but there's also the saying, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

Personally, I'm hoping LSAC releases some tablet-friendly practice tests before fully digitizing the exam, just so you'll be able to practice with the new format before Test Day.


5 / 6. Convenience taking exam and getting scores back: No matter what - the tablet-based LSAT will be much more convenient for students, so I'm really excited about this.

They'll probably offer it Monday-Friday or Monday-Thursday on most weekdays, excluding holidays, etc. in contrast to only 4 times per year.

You'll probably get your score with detailed breakdowns immediately after taking the test. No more need to wait 3-4 weeks for your score, and you'll be able to decide right away whether you need to retake. You get to avoid the ambiguity of not knowing what to do next. And avoiding ambiguity might just be the biggest benefit of all.

7. Competition from the GRE: Right now, nearly all law schools still only accept the LSAT for law school admissions. The GRE's a much more consumer-friendly test, less scary to applicants and much more convenient to take. However, once the LSAT's computerized, the GRE will lose some of its advantage. Plus, many law school applicants are more scared of math than logic games, so the LSAT might still maintain its advantage in the end. Only time will tell.


If you take the digital LSAT pilot test on May 20, please reach out and let us know how it goes!



* Note: The only interactive digital practice test released to date is the LSAT ItemWise, which is the February 1997 LSAT. The other digital format LSATs for Kindle, Nook, etc. are not interactive, so I don't recommend using them. I believe LSAC has released PrepTests for Kindle and Nook because it was easy to do so, and they believed it was a more secure digital format than PDFs, not because it adequately reflected the upcoming test format.

GRE a Valid Alternative to LSAT? Harvard Fails to Provide Evidence

As I've previously reported, Harvard Law recently announced they'll begin considering applicants' GRE scores as an alternative to the LSAT.

Some questions we might ask to determine a law school admission test is valid:

Does it adequately predict:

•  1L GPA?
•  Overall law school GPA?
•  Bar exam passage rates?
•  Success in future career?

The American Bar Association's Standard 503 states (emphasis added):

A law school 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.

Interpretation 503-1
A law school that uses an admission test other than the Law School Admission Test sponsored by the Law School Admission Council shall demonstrate that such other test is a valid and reliable test to assist the school in assessing an applicant’s capability to satisfactorily complete the school’s program of legal education.

LSAC publishes detailed statistical reports on the LSAT's predictive validity (example) demonstrating that the LSAT and undergraduate GPA are both good predictors of 1L GPA, with LSAT being a better predictor than undergraduate GPA.


According to the study linked above (for 2014):

•  the LSAT alone has a correlation of .39 with 1L GPA
•  undergraduate GPA alone has a correlation of .26 with 1L GPA
•  together, they have a correlation of .48 with 1L GPA

Where is Harvard's rigorous statistical report proving similar for the GRE? 

All we have from them is the vague claim that they conducted a:

statistical study show[ing] that the GRE is an equally valid predictor of first-year grades. 

But, as you may know from studying for the LSAT,  many studies are flawed.

I wrote an article examining some potential flaws in Harvard's study and suggesting that it is, in fact, deeply flawed.

If Harvard's study is, in fact, valid, why haven't they released the full study for public review? Why not link to a PDF of it it along with the initial announcement?

All they've given us is their summary of the study's conclusion. We don't have the study itself.

I've sent Harvard several emails over the past week requesting it - to both their admissions office and the public information office.

All of my emails have gone unanswered. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions.


UPDATE:

On the afternoon of Tuesday, April 18, I received the following response:

Dear Steve, 

The study was conducted for the purpose of compliance with ABA Standard 503, and we look forward to working with the ABA on the review process.  The study will not be released publicly while that process is still pending (and the timeline for that has not yet been determined by the ABA). 

Thank you for your inquiry.

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

A few weeks ago, I suggested the number of LSATs administered isn't likely to drop even if the GRE spreads from Harvard Law School to other top law schools.

Why?

Because the number of GMATs administered stayed the same, even when GRE spread across top business schools.


But, since then, I've done some more digging.

And, it turns out, the total number of GMAT tests administered actually doesn't tell the full story.

***

While the total number of GMAT tests administered remained steady over the GMAT testing years 2008-2016 (around 262,000)...

The number of GMAT tests administered within the U.S. specifically has steadily dropped over the past 5 years -  from 117,511 to 83,410 (about 34,000).

That's a drop of nearly 30%!


So, what's helped to make up some of the difference for GMATs administered during that time?

International growth, a lot of it coming from Asia.

Specifically:

* East and Southeast Asia (primarily due to China) increased over 11,000 tests administered (interestingly, mostly women)

* Central and South Asia (primarily due to India) increased by over 3,000 tests administered.


One could argue this means LSAT numbers will drop with competition from the GRE, and that may be true within the U.S.

However, like GMAC (the GMAT-makers), LSAC has also been looking into international expansion.


India

A few years ago, LSAC started licensing their content to Pearson for the LSAT-India, and the LSAT-India is now accepted by dozens of law schools.

(And, like the U.S., India's had its own law school bubble.)


Puerto Rico

They've also offered a version of the LSAT in Spanish for students in Puerto Rico for a few years now. (The number of tests administered is only a couple hundred.)


China

Most interestingly, they've offered a version of the LSAT in China (the LSAT-STL) for non-native speakers.

Given the success of the GMAT in that market, it represents the LSAT's biggest growth potential...if LSAC can market it there.


Of course, potential is just that, potential.

The LSAT-India gets a lot of competition from the Common Law Admission Test, which appears to be the dominant law school entrance exam over there.

Puerto Rico's a tiny market, and LSAC hasn't marketed the Spanish LSAT to other law schools in Latin America.

It looks like the LSAT-STL in China was a small pilot project that didn't go anywhere.


Additionally, while India and China are enormous markets, students in those countries don't have the same desire to go to American law schools as they do to go to top-ranked American (or overseas) business schools.

And that makes sense - business is global, but legal education (and licensing) varies from country to country.


LSAC needs to market itself domestically to law schools within each country or partner with organizations that can do so for them.

I've read several of LSAC's reports, it doesn't seem they've done enough to combat what will likely be a serious decline in LSATs administered if the GRE spreads to other law schools.

But...we'll see what happens.

There's a key difference between:

* GMAT vs. GRE

and

* LSAT vs. GRE



The GMAT and GRE both contain math, and GRE math is much easier than GMAT math.


The LSAT doesn't contain math, and many future law students are scared of math (that's part of why they opted for law school). So some students may choose the LSAT simply in order to avoid math.


(Of course, Logic Games might seem tough also, but applicants don't have prior exposure to them, while they do have prior exposure to math.)






Note: LSAC confirmed that the LSAT-India and LSAT-STL are not factored into the overall number of LSATs administered (probably since the test forms are slightly different).

Digital LSAT Pilot Test - Participants Needed

Announcement from LSAC's website (and some brief thoughts from me below):

THE DIGITAL LSAT PILOT TEST 

As part of our ongoing research into LSAT delivery options for the future, LSAC is conducting a pilot test of a tablet-based LSAT administration system, the Digital LSAT. 

We are seeking a total of 1,000 test takers to participate in the pilot test.  

Date: May 20, 2017 

Application period: March 27, 2017 - April 15, 2017 

You will need an acceptable photo to upload during the application process.
Location: Approximately 20 sites across the United States, including Puerto Rico.

ABOUT THE DIGITAL LSAT PILOT TEST 

The Digital LSAT Pilot Test is being offered by LSAC free of charge. 

The Digital LSAT Pilot Test includes actual LSAT questions, but will not result in an LSAT score. Like the LSAT, each pilot test will consist of five sections of multiple-choice questions—but they will be administered on a tablet. There may also be a writing sample, which the test taker will type using a keyboard attached to the tablet. The Digital LSAT Pilot Test will be given under conditions similar to those of an actual LSAT administration, and the timing of the sections will be identical (35 minutes for each section). 

The Digital LSAT is designed to be accessible to as many individuals with as wide a range of disabilities as possible. Please see the FAQ section to learn about the accessibility features of the tablet that are automatically available. Further information on available accommodations and how to request them may also be found in the FAQ section. 

BENEFITS OF TAKING THE DIGITAL LSAT PILOT TEST 

Taking the Digital LSAT Pilot Test should help to prepare you for taking the actual LSAT. As indicated above, the test questions you will encounter in the Digital LSAT Pilot Test are actual LSAT questions, providing a valuable practice opportunity under realistic test-taking conditions. 

In addition, contingent upon your completion of the full pilot test, you will receive: 

A detailed performance report listing the number of questions you answered correctly for each of the three LSAT question types (Analytical Reasoning, Logical Reasoning, and Reading Comprehension) and the number answered correctly for each of several skill areas within each LSAT question type.  

Your performance report will also contain brief descriptions of all of these skill areas. Digital LSAT Pilot Test results are not LSAT scores and will not be transmitted to law schools. 

A $100 gift card will be given to each participant who completes the entire pilot test.

It could just be a coincidence, but maybe LSAC has sped up research on administering the LSAT digitally since the recent announcement that Harvard Law will soon accept GRE scores.

One interesting benefit LSAC mentions above is the detailed performance report covering skill areas within each LSAT question type. From what I've seen up to this point, LSAC has never provided students with its own internal breakdown of how LSAC views "skill areas." I'll be very curious to see if they provide that to students on future LSAT administrations, and what it looks like.


Are you taking the Digital LSAT Pilot Test? Shoot me an email and let me know!

If you're considering taking it, it's in 20 locations around the U.S., including Puerto Rico. And for those in the NYC tri-state area, it's in NYC (Flushing, Queens) and Philadelphia. For those in Texas, it's in a few major cities.

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

Khan Academy Offering Free LSAT Prep in 2018

Yes, it's true.

The Khan Academy will begin offering free LSAT prep videos starting in the second half of 2018.

I'm very excited about this - I've been a huge fan of the Khan Academy for a long time, and they're part of the reason I've been inspired to offer lots of free LSAT materials myself over the years.

They're partnering directly with LSAC, similar to what they've already done with the College Board for the SAT.

The formal writing we see in LSAC publications like the LSAT SuperPrep book is often inaccessible to the average student, so I'm hoping the Khan Academy will replicate what they've done for other exams, rather than just create a video version of SuperPrep.

I have high hopes, though - the Khan Academy has a great track record of making difficult concepts easier to understand.


Here's a video of the announcement from Salman Khan himself:




If you're looking for more details, LSAC's issued a press release about this.

I'm been in touch with the creator of the Khan Academy's LSAT course and gave some feedback on an early version of the course's curriculum a few months ago. I'm hoping to remain involved as they develop it.

If you're looking for free LSAT prep videos in the meantime, I've released nearly 200 of them. And I've also released a series of affordable LSAT courses.

As always, feel free to reach out if you have any questions or need anything as you prep!

Tablet-Based Digital LSAT (on iPad?)

In the most recent issue of LSAC's newsletter (PDF, page 5), the interim president, Athornia Steele writes:

I am particularly excited about the progress of the research on the possibility of offering a tablet-based Digital LSAT. We anticipate moving into the field-testing phase of this research in spring 2017.

Looks like LSAC is moving ahead with administering a digital LSAT via tablet (maybe iPad?), rather than on a desktop or laptop computer.

But, as always, any statements they make about computerizing it for everyone are extremely vague. I still think  it'll be a LONG time (several years) before they release a computerized version. And when they do computerize it, I'm sure they'll announce far in advance.

While the GMAT, GRE, and MCAT are all administered digitally, I think it'll still be a long and slow road for LSAC to finally computerize the LSAT.


Previously:

Get Ready for a Computer-Based LSAT - LSAC Moving Forward with Digital LSAT

Digital LSAT? LSAC Studies LSAT Administration Via Tablet