Celebrating 10 years! 2007-2017

Law schools doing away with lsat requirement

https://www.wsj.com/articles/law-sc hools-say-please-come-no- notreallyalawyer12/06/17
But I don't want to subscribe. junkwired12/06/17
"The American Bar Association’s accrediting arm is conside tsmonk12/06/17
It looks like it is just Georgetown and Harvard, not all sch trijocker12/06/17
it's Brooklyn and GW too now... accountability via a single wolfman12/06/17
The reasoning for this is much more perverse than the genera dietcoke12/06/17
Serious question: How can anyone who knows about the law sch wearyattorney12/06/17
Your logic shows the tribalism of politics that is infecting samfriedlander212/06/17
Republicans might very well be bad, I don’t dispute it. H wearyattorney12/07/17
The schools/ABA are acting rationally in their self interest tacocheese12/07/17
You are exactly correct, and this is why I believe the law s wearyattorney12/07/17
Well, I've never been a liberal and have in fact moved from wolfman12/06/17
Fair point. I just the think it’s a perfect example of wh wearyattorney12/06/17
"They" take over...seriously? The scam is the most egalitar toooldtocare12/06/17
Liberal philosophy is that a big government staffed by respo wearyattorney12/06/17
Where do you come up with these remarkable numbers("99 perce toooldtocare12/07/17
Yeah it makes no sense. I had a professor new to my school s downwardslope12/07/17
Are you legitimately trying to argue that the people who run wearyattorney12/07/17
So what's your authority for your 99% stats? Other than jus toooldtocare12/07/17
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/ 2016/oct/6/liberal-profes wearyattorney12/07/17
I'd recommend using Fox News instead of the Washington Times toooldtocare12/07/17
They are probably just trying to admit more blacks and Latin mrlollipop12/06/17
You mean more Kushners, Bushes and Trumps. Let’s deal with cyph3r12/07/17
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive /2017/11/03/education/edl cyph3r12/07/17
Some schools have had "no LSAT" admissions for a long time. tacocheese12/07/17
In 3 years, these same deans will mount a full-scale assault guyingorillasuit12/07/17

notreallyalawyer (Dec 6, 2017 - 1:42 pm)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/law-schools-say-please-come-no-lsat-required-1512556201

Reply Like (0)
junkwired (Dec 6, 2017 - 1:44 pm)

But I don't want to subscribe.

Reply Like (0)
tsmonk (Dec 6, 2017 - 2:17 pm)

"The American Bar Association’s accrediting arm is considering no longer requiring any admissions test at all. A final decision won’t be made until mid-next year at the earliest."

I hope the resulting fallout from this is what finally gets the ABA's accreditation privileges revoked

Reply Like (0)
trijocker (Dec 6, 2017 - 2:19 pm)

It looks like it is just Georgetown and Harvard, not all schools.
I just helped someone with their LSAC registraion, and it looked like basically most all law schools were still on there to receive LSAT reports.
It provides an convenient way for schools to benchmark applicants by GPA and LSAt Score. I really cannot think of why the schools are doing away with it, unless you are rich enough to get into Georgetown or Harvard. Or the law school is of such poor quality they will take anyone, no test score required, just your money to get in. Caveat emptor.

Reply Like (0)
wolfman (Dec 6, 2017 - 2:53 pm)

it's Brooklyn and GW too now... accountability via a single metric is on its way out:

https://abovethelaw.com/2017/12/2-more-schools-to-accept-the-gre-for-admission/

"Diverse career backgrounds" means "people who can't be bothered to take a logical reasoning and reading test and/or who couldn't score even modertaely well on one, but who are willing to sign on the dotted line for 200K in student loans.

I will say this again: law school deans deserve to be in prison.

Reply Like (0)
dietcoke (Dec 6, 2017 - 4:27 pm)

The reasoning for this is much more perverse than the general public knows.

Schools are almost exclusively doing this so they can take on poorly qualified minority candidates at sticker price.

They're not doing away with the LSAT. Rather, they're just bypassing the LSAT hit that normally occurs by meeting their diversity quota. Now they can get their ~10% AA, 5% LGBT class while holding their LSAT medians. And those minority students largely get to pay full fare!

Law schools never stop scamming ...

Reply Like (0)
wearyattorney (Dec 6, 2017 - 4:29 pm)

Serious question: How can anyone who knows about the law school scam, let alone experienced it, still be a Democrat and/or liberal? Republicans are bad news as evinced by the new tax policy, but doesn’t the situation here conclusively reveal the inflection point of big government run by liberals? 99% of law school administrators are liberal, and by extension, so is the accrediting organization responsible for regulating law schools. What have they done? They have regulatory captured the agency and are running it exclusively for their benefit and to the detriment of the public and the students. They keep reducing standards and keep reducing standards in order to make sure that the GOVERNMENT loan money comes in. This hurts the students, it hurts the tax payer, it hurts the public, and it hurts practicing attorneys for various reasons.

If anyone argues against this madness, well, it must mean you are a racist because there is one minority that made it out of ten thousand and but for the loans that wouldn’t have happened.

They preach self sacrifice, responsibility, yadyadyada. When it comes down to it, what they are doing is exclusively protecting their self interest, but this carnage wouldn’t be possible if the Feds didn’t guarantee the loans.

This is what the entire country will be like (if it isn’t already) once these cretins take over everything. They’ll tell you and me to sacrifice while bulldozing everyone using the enforcement power of the state.

Corporations are bad, but at the end of the day 1) at least there is some market accountability and 2) they don’t have a direct monopoly power on force so they can steal, I mean tax, money from everyone and stuff it in the shareholders pocket.

There is no accountability here. What’s the point of the ABA? No accreditation is better than this because at least dirt cheap options will emerge.

Reply Like (0)
samfriedlander2 (Dec 6, 2017 - 6:32 pm)

Your logic shows the tribalism of politics that is infecting this country. I lean democrat but that doesn't mean I agree with EVERY single thing a democrat does. It also doesn't make me the "enemy" or anti-American. I find it ironic you're talking about the horrors of democrats being in full power during a time Republicans are in full power. So far we have two countries arguing about nuclear war, attempt to take healthcare from millions, complete blackout of current military operations, reversal on just about anything Obama did to help the environment, sudden rise in neo-nazi / alt-right activities (wonder why?), and a tax cut aim at giving rich people trillions during a time that the income gap is historically massive.... in less than a year.

Even with that - I don't assume all Republicans are evil, greedy, heartless people. How about we just stop insulting people based purely on being democrat or republican?

Reply Like (0)
wearyattorney (Dec 7, 2017 - 12:47 pm)

Republicans might very well be bad, I don’t dispute it. However, how can liberalism work in reality? Serious question.

Law professors are by and large liberals. They control the profession and the government agency responsible for controlling the profession. Liberal philosophy suggests that the government can protect the people when staffed with the right people. In reality though, they do what any person is going to do, whether Republican or Democrat, pursue their interests irrespective of the consequences. The government has a particularly unique feature though, eg a monopoly on force, so when you get people pursuing their interests (as human nature essentially demands) at everyone’s else expense, the results can be particularly ugly.

Republicans have only one thing over Democrats, just one: they acknowledge people are going to behave selfishly, and demanding that a group of people run the government altruistically is impossible. The government will support the interests of those who staff it and those who support those who staff it.

I don’t have the answers, I just know that, no matter the society, the political party that says we need to staff the entity with a monopoly on force with responsible and altruistic people is going to cause problems because the people making the demand of altruism are naive at best and hypocritical at worst.

By their deeds you shall know them.

Reply Like (0)
tacocheese (Dec 7, 2017 - 10:36 am)

The schools/ABA are acting rationally in their self interests, just like corporations do when they're taking government handouts and tax breaks. I agree with what others are saying... This isn't a problem constrained to a political party, but a problem (feature) of human nature.

One of the most incredible reforms for student loans in my lifetime was enactment of the CCRAA in the oughts by republican Congress and Bush 2. This is what established PSLF and IBR and essentially eliminated private student loans. It enables potential students to make irrational decisions because now "loans" are really just free money if you suck government teet for ten years.

Reply Like (0)
wearyattorney (Dec 7, 2017 - 12:33 pm)

You are exactly correct, and this is why I believe the law school situation is a perfect example why the ethos of liberal politics doesn’t work: a big government staffed with public minded individuals looking out for the public good.

The result is as it is, i.e. those who staff the government are going to pursue their interests without regard to anyone. That is acting rationally, if you constrain the definition of rationality within the confines of our limited nature.

Conservatives effectively acknowledge this reality, and point out that if you make the government big, the country is going to be run for the benefit of the people running the government. (There’s a reason Washington and it’s surrounding suburbs are the richest in the country). The problem is that a big government is going to have unrestrained power, and that unrestrained power is going to be used against the people for the benefit of those who run the government. Liberals say this isn’t true. Liberals demand sacrifice and a consideration of community. From a scientific point of view, higher education shows why that doesn’t work because that is one area they have complete control, and the results speak for themselves.

I don’t know what the answer is. Republicans are bad too, but I know for sure what the left proposes just doesn’t work, pure and simple.

Reply Like (0)
wolfman (Dec 6, 2017 - 5:52 pm)

Well, I've never been a liberal and have in fact moved from run-of-the-mill Republicanism to full-fledged right-wing nationalism... but in fairness, the few Federalist Society-type professors and the even fewer conservative law deans and schools (George Mason and Ave Maria come to mind) aren't much better thgan the rest of the scammers.

Reply Like (0)
wearyattorney (Dec 6, 2017 - 6:20 pm)

Fair point. I just the think it’s a perfect example of what will happen if they completely take over.

Reply Like (0)
toooldtocare (Dec 6, 2017 - 7:29 pm)

"They" take over...seriously?
The scam is the most egalitarian rip-off in American history. While you decide the scammers are the dreaded democrats and/or liberals, you ignore the fact that not a single self-styled conservative legal academic-in other words, law dean/law prof- has spoken out against the scam. And as pointed out above, whole schools which take pride in their conservatism remain silent as they profit from the scam. It's all about the money, and both red and blue love green.
I too am pretty conservative, but assigning this as a "liberal" issue is missing the point. Are the "liberals" trying to preserve the scam? Absolutely-but so are the conservatives.
Money makes strange bedfellows.

Reply Like (0)
wearyattorney (Dec 6, 2017 - 8:23 pm)

Liberal philosophy is that a big government staffed by responsible and public minded individuals, e.g. liberals, is in the public’s best interest.

One industry that liberals have total control is higher education, and not just in terms of the universities, but the regulatory apparatuses. 99 percent of law school deans and professors are liberals. 99 percent of the people who run the ABA are liberals. What have they done? They have behaved in their own self- interest to the detriment of everyone else by ensuring that the government facilitates their interest at the expense of everyone else.

I agree that free market conservative law professors are hypocrites given the guaranteed federal loans, but how much power do they have?

I am saying that the law school industrial complex is proof positive that liberalism can’t work, as evinced by what is happening right now. People are going to be selfish and those that demand sacrifice from everyone else are usually the ones to behave the worst of all.

Reply Like (0)
toooldtocare (Dec 7, 2017 - 9:23 am)

Where do you come up with these remarkable numbers("99 percent of law deans and professors...")?
"Everybody knows" doesn't count. And no, the law school scam isn't "proof positive that liberalism can't work"; it's proof positive that pure naked greed controls just about everything in the world of law schools.

Reply Like (0)
downwardslope (Dec 7, 2017 - 9:30 am)

Yeah it makes no sense. I had a professor new to my school say she considered herself moderate and was conservative at one law school, liberal at another, and moderate at mine, suggesting that 99% can’t be liberal unless she was like at the only conservative school in the nation. I know of others, so that is not the case.

Reply Like (0)
wearyattorney (Dec 7, 2017 - 12:39 pm)

Are you legitimately trying to argue that the people who run higher education and law school specifically are conservatives? Every professor I had was a liberal and a democrat.

The unrestrained greed is a function of human nature when power is provided. That’s why bit government doesn’t work, just like the professors took over the ABA, every other regulator agency has been coopted or will be coopted as people pursue their interest to the rest of the public’s detriment. It’s just with the government, the power is unlimited. The federal government is the only reason the higher education scam and law school scam continues. They supply unlimited loans to themselves, eg the ABA (the government agency responsible for regulating) is functioning for the benefit of the regulators.

Reply Like (0)
toooldtocare (Dec 7, 2017 - 3:18 pm)

So what's your authority for your 99% stats? Other than just making them up,that is.
And it seems as if your rant against liberals has devolved into basic anarchy theory. So are you an anarchist? If so, why are you a lawyer at all?

Reply Like (0)
wearyattorney (Dec 7, 2017 - 6:06 pm)

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/6/liberal-professors-outnumber-conservatives-12-1/

https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/24015/

I don’t know what the answer is. Maybe it’s a small central government that handles the basics, e.g. military, etc.

Maybe the answer is if you work for the government you can’t have any financial or personal ties to the industry you plan on working for, eg if you work for the EPA you can never work for a big oil company.

What I do know is just passing regulations and growing the government is only making matters worse given human nature. The 20th century established that conclusively, and the microsm of law school governance merely reenforces what was known.

Reply Like (0)
toooldtocare (Dec 7, 2017 - 6:38 pm)

I'd recommend using Fox News instead of the Washington Times; I'm not sure the Rev. Moon is the most objective editorial observer.
Democracy is a messy business, but your assessment is far too nihilistic; frankly, while there are excesses, responsible government can be a force for much good.
But I'll defer to Churchill:

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…"

Reply Like (0)
mrlollipop (Dec 6, 2017 - 8:54 pm)

They are probably just trying to admit more blacks and Latinos....LOL

Reply Like (0)
cyph3r (Dec 7, 2017 - 8:03 am)

You mean more Kushners, Bushes and Trumps. Let’s deal with reality and not your run-of-the-mill knee jerk racism.

Reply Like (0)
cyph3r (Dec 7, 2017 - 9:15 am)

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/03/education/edlife/05ed-quiz.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Feducation-edlife&_r=0

Is the LSAT’s monopoly eroding? Last year, the University of Arizona law school became the first to allow applicants to submit general GRE scores as an alternative to taking the Law School Admission Test. Now, a handful of elite law schools — including Georgetown, Harvard, Columbia, Northwestern and Washington University in St. Louis — have announced they will do the same. A trickle, yes. But an elite one, and remember how the GRE began to encroach on the GMAT a decade ago? Now, 1,300 business schools accept it.

“You’re going to see a few more schools announce, and then a blanket permission from the A.B.A., and then you’ll see a deluge,” predicted Mike Spivey, founding partner of the test prep company Spivey Consulting. “The GRE expands the applicant pool.”

For one, it is offered far more often than the LSAT and can be used to apply to most graduate programs, not just law school, meaning only one test to prep for.

That broader access is what appeals. “We had been thinking for quite some time that the guardrails to get into the legal profession were a little narrow,” said Andrew Cornblatt, admissions dean for the Georgetown University Law Center. He's looking for a “better cross-section” of applicants, specifically in science, technology, engineering and math. He’s counting on the GRE's quantitative section to identify deductive thinkers — what most of the LSAT is aimed at, sans math.

Reply Like (0)
tacocheese (Dec 7, 2017 - 9:48 am)

Some schools have had "no LSAT" admissions for a long time. At least two schools I recall from 10 years ago--Michigan and Texas Tech. As others have said, yes it is to game the ranking system so schools can increase revenues. Being higher ranked = the school can charge more than peer schools and get more butts in seats.

Reply Like (0)
guyingorillasuit (Dec 7, 2017 - 8:58 pm)

In 3 years, these same deans will mount a full-scale assault on the bar exam, arguing that it's too hard, and that it must be scored holistically.

Anything to make a buck. I do not blame them. But they should not be in a position where they are teaching ethics to the next generation while simultaneously robbing them blind.

Reply Like (0)
Post a message in this thread