LSAT to Debut Updated Writing Section this Summer

The LSAT’s writing section is getting refreshed. LSAC announced this week that, as of July 31st (start of LSAT testing cycle), the test will debut a new writing section designed to gauge test-takers’ argumentative writing skills. 

The update, made in response to the evolving needs of the profession, and to input gathered from the legal community, will no longer focus just on logical reasoning.  It will now try to capture an applicant’s “ability to construct a cogent argument based on a variety of evidentiary sources.” To do this, the section will provide test-takers with an issue and additional context, given through competing perspectives on that issue. The writer will be asked to draft an essay taking and supporting a position, taking into account and addressing, as appropriate, the context provided.

For now, the writing section will remain an unscored component of the LSAT. However, LSAC plans to collect data over the 2024-2025 testing administration period to assess the validity and reliability of the updated section. The organization will work towards its longer-term goal of providing a scored section for law school admissions officers. 

Interested test-takers can review a sample prompt, via LawHub, as a part of the free official LSAT Prep test library. A sample writing prompt is also available on LSAC.org. 

ABA Declines to Grant JD-Next Full Approval

Last week, the ABA declined to grant the JD-Next law school admissions test full approval. This decision maintains the status quo in which schools must request a variance from standard 503—the ABA’s admissions test requirement—to use the test for admissions. Almost 25 percent of ABA-accredited schools have already received this exemption for the upcoming admissions cycle.

The ABA requested additional data in order to confirm the test as a "valid and reliable" predictor of law student grades, on par with the LSAT or GRE. Daniel Thies, Chair of the ABA Standards Committee, provided his reasoning by referencing an ABA-commissioned third party evaluation of the test. Although the report did conclude that the JD-Next was a valid predictor of grades, it came with “multiple cautions and caveats” that pointed to a need for additional data collection and study. 

David Klieger, the Program Director for JD-Next at Aspen Publishing, provided a statement to Reuters that expressed disappointment, but highlighted that "institutions still have the option to incorporate JD-Next through the use of a variance, and potential law students continue to benefit from it."

Related JD-Next: What You Need to Know About this Alternative to the LSAT

JD-Next: What You Need to Know About this Alternative to the LSAT

Next year’s law school admissions cycle will bring change. Law.com reported that almost 25 percent of ABA-accredited law schools have been granted a variance from Standard 503—the ABA’s admissions test requirement—to use the JD-Next, in addition to the LSAT and GRE, for the 2024-2025 admissions cycle.

What is JD-Next?

The JD-Next differs from the LSAT and GRE as participants must take an eight-week online course on doctrinal concepts and legal skills in addition to a final exam. The virtual exam is given at the course’s conclusion and is based on the content presented throughout. The test is given on one of two predetermined dates and is four hours in length. It includes multiple choice questions and an unscored essay. Students must take both the course and the exam.

The test is said to measure a student’s learning ability, predict their performance in law school, and actually help prepare them for law school. And according to various studies, the JD-Next is more equitable, perhaps an answer to the long-standing racial disparities seen in standardized test scores like the LSAT.

When is the test available?

The upcoming JD-Next administration runs April 29th through June 24th with the test available on either June 25th and 29th.

The price for the course, test, and score report is $250.

Who accepts the test?

These 47 schools have been granted the variance to accept the JD-Next:

• (University of) Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law

• Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law

• Atlanta’s John Marshall Law School

• Boston College Law School

• Brigham Young University J. Reuben Clark Law School

• California Western School of Law

• (University of) California-Davis School of Law

• Case Western Reserve University School of Law

• Charleston School of Law

• (University of) Cincinnati College of Law

• City University of New York School of Law

• Cleveland State University College of Law

• Creighton University School of Law

• (University of) Dayton School of Law

• Drake University Law School

• Emory University School of Law

• Florida International University College of Law

• The George Washington University Law School

• Georgetown University Law Center

• (University of) Georgia School of Law

• Hofstra University Maurice A. Deane School of Law

• Indiana University-Bloomington Maurer School of Law

• Loyola University-New Orleans College of Law

• (University of) Maine School of Law

• (University of) Massachusetts Law School (Dartmouth)

• (University of) Miami School of Law

• Mississippi College School of Law

• (University of) Nebraska College of Law

• Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad Law Center

• Oklahoma City University School of Law

• (University of the) Pacific McGeorge School of Law

• (University of) Pittsburgh School of Law

• (University of) San Diego School of Law

• (University of) South Dakota School of Law

• St. Mary’s University School of Law

• Suffolk University Law School

• Syracuse University College of Law

• Temple University James E. Beasley School of Law

• Texas A&M University School of Law

• Texas Tech University School of Law

• Thomas M. Cooley Law School (Western Michigan University)

• (University of) Toledo College of Law

• Vanderbilt University Law School

• Western New England University School of Law

• Widener University Delaware Law School

• (University of) Wisconsin Law School

• Yeshiva University Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

Proctoring Issues Cause Significant Delays in Online LSAT Exam

For the first time, over the weekend, LSAT examinees had the option to take the exam either in-person at a test center or online. Most, 61 percent, opted to take the test online and, unfortunately, it did not go well. 

Test-takers experienced significant delays while attempting to access the exam online on Friday and Saturday, which the Law School Admissions Council (LSAC) explained were due to problems with the virtual proctoring system. Mark Murray, Council Spokesman, estimated that “hundreds and hundreds” of examinees were affected, although he did not yet have access to official numbers. This was the first online exam proctored by vendor Prometric.  

Kevin Milne, an examinee, shared his experience via Reuters. After logging into the LSAT on Saturday from his home, Milne waited 90 minutes for the online proctor to start his exam. He then finished the three-hour exam, two hours later than expected. And he had to stay in test-taking position for that entire time. “I was so emotionally and mentally exhausted by the last section that it was pretty hard to focus, but I think I might have done okay still,” Milne said. 

LSAC issued an apology to test takers, said they are working alongside new vendor Prometric to correct issues, and offered affected examinees the option to retake the exam for free this weekend, August 19th and 20th, either remotely or in-person. Additionally, test takers have the option to reschedule another test at no charge, through June of next year. 

American Bar Association Rejects Test Optional Admissions

Yesterday, the American Bar Association’s (ABA) policy making body rejected a bid to remove the law school admissions test requirement from the law school accreditation standards. The vote marks the second defeat of the proposal in six years. 

Potentially allowing law schools to go “test optional” for admissions starting in 2025 created a unique controversy, as both proponents and opponents of the policy argued that it would be harmful to law school diversity. 

“As the debate showed, we all care deeply about diversity, we just have different views on the best way to pursue it. The LSAT is an important tool for advancing diversity. The incoming class of 2022 is by far the most diverse class in history, and more than 98 percent of those students used the LSAT. And this year’s applicants are even more diverse than last year, which bodes well for continued progress. The House vote will ensure that we have additional time for research into the actual impact of test-optional policies on students and diversity, so that any policy changes are based on evidence and data,” said Kellye Testy, the President of LSAC, in a statement after the vote.

Testy’s statement echoed a sentiment shared previously in an open letter penned by 60 law school deans urging the ABA to reject the proposal. The letter called out the potential harm that removing the test could do for diversity in admissions, as it would require schools to depend more heavily on other, potentially more biased, metrics like GPA, recommendations, and the reputation of an applicant’s undergraduate institution.

ABA Moves Forward with Motion to Drop Law School Admissions Test Mandate

On Friday November 18, as expected, the American Bar Association’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar voted to eliminate the standardized test mandate for law school admissions. The proposal will now move to the ABA’s House of Delegates for a final vote in February. If it is approved then, due to a last-minute revision, the removal of the test mandate will still not take effect until the fall of 2025. This revision was enacted to provide law schools with time to consider new ways to gauge student readiness.

This is not the first time that the test mandate’s fate has been brought before the ABA’s House of Delegates for a vote. In 2018, the measure was brought to the House, although it was withdrawn prior to the vote, as it appeared unlikely to pass after diversity advocates lobbied House members to reject the proposed change.

Now stakeholders who are, both for and against, overturning the test mandate have aligned their position with the same goal of improving diversity within the legal profession. “It’s very rare that I encounter a situation where the proponents on exact opposite sides of an issue are citing the same issue to support their arguments,” said Joseph West, Chair of the ABA’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar. 

Those who wish to see the testing mandate remain, including 60 Law School Deans, believe that the test provides a meaningful way for applicants to showcase their acumen and law school readiness. This allows law schools to take educated chances on students who may have lower GPAs. Without this score, the Deans argue, law schools will not have as much information to gauge a student’s likelihood of success in a challenging academic environment. 

Those who wish to see the mandate overturned argue that standardized tests “perpetuate racial gaps,” and cite research showing that white test-takers tend to perform better on the tests than those from underrepresented backgrounds. 

Related blogs:

New Survey Shows Most Law Schools will Continue Using Standardized Test Scores

Law School Deans Write Letter of Opposition to ABA’s Proposed Recommendation to Drop Standardized Test Requirement

ABA to Vote on Recommendation that Would Allow Law Schools to Drop Admissions Test Requirement

New Survey Shows Most Law Schools will Continue Using Standardized Test Scores

On Friday, the ABA will vote on a proposal that would eliminate the requirement for law schools to use standardized test scores as a component of admissions. But, according to a recent Reuters article, new survey results from Kaplan suggest that the vote’s outcome may not significantly impact current practices at many schools.

Kaplan recently surveyed 82 law school admission officers about how their school would proceed if the ABA opts to eliminate the testing mandate. Among the respondents, which included admissions officers from 12 of the top 25 law schools, half responded that they are “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to continue requiring standardized test scores. Almost half, 37 admissions officers, replied that they were unsure. Just four respondents said that they were “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to stop requiring a standardized test.   

Jeff Thomas, Kaplan’s Executive Director of Legal Programs, likened the situation to that of medical schools. He noted that while the medical school accrediting organization does not mandate an entrance exam, almost all schools still make use of one for admissions decisions. “Irrespective of how this vote goes on Friday, it doesn’t necessarily mean that anything in admissions is actually going to change,” he said.

Related:

Law School Deans Write Letter of Opposition to ABA’s Proposed Recommendation to Drop Standardized Test Requirement

ABA to Vote on Recommendation that Would Allow Law Schools to Drop Admissions Test Requirement

Law School Deans Write Letter of Opposition to ABA’s Proposed Recommendation to Drop Standardized Test Requirement

In response to the ABA’s proposed revision to eliminate the test requirement as a component of the law school admission process, 60 law school deans have submitted a letter expressing their opposition to the measure. They believe it will harm efforts to improve diversity in law school classes. “Without the LSAT as a factor, law schools may be less willing to take a chance on students who do not perform well on GPA or other metrics because they worked to put themselves through school, had to care for family, or for other reasons, but would enhance the diversity of our institutions and ultimately the profession,” the Dean’s letter states. “Students who struggle early in college, which sometimes happens with first-generation college students, may have lower initial grades and thus overall lower grade point averages. Test scores may help these students, both in determining which schools they should consider and in gaining admission.”

The Society of American Law Teachers also submitted a letter, written by Olympia Durhart and Allyson Gold, calling for a data review of the projected impact of abolishing the test requirement on groups historically underrepresented in law. They note that it is necessary, before taking action, to ensure that the measure won’t adversely affect the very groups which it purports to help. Further, they contend that law schools should “act as laboratories for admissions strategy experimentation to attack the larger structural barriers to the profession.”

In total, 51 individuals or groups submitted comments in favor of the proposal, while 49 submitted comments opposing the measure.

Related: ABA to Vote on Recommendation that Would Allow Law Schools to Drop Admissions Test Requirement

ABA to Vote on Recommendation that Would Allow Law Schools to Drop Admissions Test Requirement

Later this month, the American Bar Association will vote on a recommendation by its Strategic Review Committee to eliminate the requirement that all law schools must include standardized testing as a component of admissions. Should the recommendation be accepted, it would not take effect until next year (at the earliest) and would allow individual law schools the option to remove or retain current testing requirements. The current standard states that all law schools “shall require” applicants to submit scores from a “valid and reliable admission test,” which in November of 2021 was expanded to include the GRE, in addition to the LSAT. 

The revision language notes that, “While a law school may still choose to use one or more admissions tests as part of sound admission practices or policies, the revisions require a law school to identify all tests that it accepts in its admissions policies so that applicants to the law school know which admissions tests are accepted.” It goes on to describe that accepting the recommendation “eliminates some of the challenges inherent in determining which tests are in fact valid and reliable for law school admission,” although law schools that continue to use an admissions test would need to show that the test is in line with “sound admissions practices and procedures.” The Strategic Review Committee’s language also notes that, as of early 2022, the Council is the only remaining “accreditor among law, medical, dental, pharmacy, business, and architecture school accreditors that required an admissions test in its Standards.” This suggests that the change in language may not greatly impact the current practice of requesting test scores from applicants, particularly among highly-competitive programs. 

The Law School Admission Council (LSAC), which oversees the LSAT and is independent from the ABA, said in a statement, “Studies show test-optional policies often work against minoritized individuals, so we hope the ABA will consider these issues very carefully. We believe the LSAT will continue to be a vital tool for schools and applicants for years to come, as it is the most accurate predictor of law school success and a powerful tool for diversity when used properly as one factor in a holistic admission process.”

It will be necessary to follow news from the ABA over the next couple of weeks to see how the Council will proceed. Bill Adams, Managing Director of the ABA Accreditation and Legal Education, said in a statement that “Issues concerning admissions policies have been of concern to the Council for several years.” He went on to explain that the Council will discuss the recommendation on May 20, and determine if a vote is in order or if further circulation and comment will be required.

Law School Admissions Council to Pilot Program that Replaces Standardized Testing Requirement with Defined Undergraduate Curriculum

The Law School Admissions Council (LSAC) recently announced that it is developing a pilot program, which will offer an alternative pathway to law school—one that does not require standardized testing. Rather, it will gauge student readiness using a defined undergraduate curriculum meant to prepare students for the rigors of law school. 

During the pilot, LSAC will partner with undergraduate institutions to define and implement a curriculum that students will complete before graduation to earn eligibility to apply to law school without LSAT or GRE scores. The underlying idea is that the curriculum will prepare students for the same skills that the LSAT covers. Currently, Cornell College in Mt. Vernon, Iowa, Northeastern University, and the University of Maryland Eastern Shore have committed to participate and are helping to develop the program. There is also an 11-member advisory committee including law school deans from University of Michigan, Northwestern, Howard, Suffolk University, and UC Berkeley.

LSAC representatives do not see the program as one that will eventually overtake standardized testing as the primary path to law school, but they are hopeful that it will create a viable alternative that could increase access to legal education. Kaitlynn Griffith, LSAC Vice President of Product Development and Business Intelligence, describes the pilot as a way to broaden the pipeline for law school. “One of our founding principles on this was to look at diversity, equity and inclusion and ask, ‘How can we be opening more doors into the legal profession?’” 

Once the pilot is in place, which will likely include having the initial group of participating students take the LSAT to validate their performance and readiness, the LSAC will have a continued role to play in convincing both the American Bar Association and law schools to accept the new applicant pathway. Griffith notes she is hopeful that, after a successful pilot period, the program will expand to include more undergraduate universities.

Law School Admissions Officers Express Preference for LSAT Over GRE Scores

Last November the council of the ABA’s Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar voted in favor of allowing law schools to accept GRE scores in place of the LSAT for admissions decisions. However, a recent Kaplan survey suggests that law school admissions officers still give admissions preference to students who submit LSAT scores. 

Kaplan’s survey respondents included representatives from 25 schools that accept both LSAT and GRE scores from applicants. Of these, 13 reported an admissions advantage for students who submit LSAT scores and the remaining 12 reported that they view the tests equally. None of the schools expressed a preference for the GRE. 

Jeff Thomas, Kaplan’s Executive Director of Legal Programs, summarized the survey results: “What Kaplan’s survey shows is that while there is some definite movement to accept the GRE among law schools, there’s still not full acceptance. Of the schools we spoke with that accept scores from both exams, half say that applicants who submit LSAT scores have the edge over GRE applicants. In fact, no law school we spoke with gives the edge to GRE applicants. Some admissions officers noted the LSAT is created specifically for law school admissions so they have more faith in it, while the GRE, as its name suggests, is much more of a general exam. Schools also treat LSAT students more favorably, giving quicker admissions decisions to LSAT applicants, and scholarship awards exclusively to LSAT applicants. Our research suggests it will be at least several more years before law schools fully warm up to the GRE.”

The survey also provided an opportunity for law school admissions officers to write narrative responses. These direct quotes, while anonymous, offer additional insight into how admissions officers view the two tests. 

Some express a greater faith in the validity of the LSAT’s predictive value for an applicant’s performance in law school. 

“The GRE does not breed confidence in me to put my professional reputation on the line. (I still have bills to pay….) The primary reason why we are including the GRE as an option is because the faculty of this institution didn’t want to ‘fall behind’ the law schools. Well, how do we know where those other law schools are going? How do we know that that direction is the direction that we need or want to take?”

“The advantage to the LSAT is that it is established, accepted universally, and unique to law school. The vast amount of data and history gives it predictive value. Individually, there can be a benefit to someone who can perform better on the GRE, but in terms of competing in a pool, it is still relatively unknown in law schools.” 

“Individuals with an LSAT score will probably need to wait less time to receive an admissions decision. This is because the individuals who evaluate the application for admission have more faith in the validity, reliability and minimization of standardized testing bias that accompany the LSAT.”  

“From my own experience, the GRE is a glorified SAT that doesn’t actually tell us anything about a prospective student’s ability to be an effective law student. The LSAT’s not perfect, but it’s a much better diagnostic tool.” 

Others suggest that taking the LSAT is more indicative of a commitment to law school and the legal profession, as opposed to the GRE which may imply that an applicant is considering law school among other graduate options. 

“For now, we believe that applicants most interested in attending law school will take or have taken the LSAT. Considering the high focus on the cost of law school, graduate debt load, and volatile employment outcomes, we think it is prudent to admit students who have been preparing for law school over time. In addition, there is data that asserts the GRE has the same bias as other standardized tests, so it remains to be seen whether it will result in a significant increase in diverse applicants overall.” 

Finally, another admissions officer pointed out that the LSAT is the preferred test when it comes to determining who will receive scholarship funds.

“We do not offer robust scholarships to GRE only applicants.” 

Law Schools See Spike in Applicants

The law school application surge is real. Data released on April 22, 2021 by the Law School Admissions Council (LSAC) shows that applicants for the 2021-2022 school year are up 20.0 percent compared to the same date last year, and up 15.8 percent compared to two years ago. The data also shows that applicants, likely in response to uncertain conditions, are applying to more schools, as the number of submitted applications is up 31.6 percent compared to last year, and up 27.9 percent compared to two years ago.

When early figures emerged showing a jump in applications for the upcoming school year, some speculated that applicants submitted their materials early due to COVID-19 lockdowns. However, at this point in the admissions cycle, the number of applicants for the 2021 school year, which still has weeks remaining for some schools, already exceeds the total number of 2020 applicants. Additionally, as of April 21st, there are well over 10, 000 more applicants in 2021 than there were at the same time in 2020. According to law.com, if these trends continue, this is likely to be the largest applicant pool since 2011.

The quality of this year’s applicants is also proving formidable. The number of students receiving top scores on the LSAT increased significantly compared to last year; applicants reporting scores between 175 to 180 on the LSAT doubled, jumping from 721 to 1,442. The number who scored between 170 to 174 also increased by 54.1 percent, and 28 percent more applicants reported scores in the bands 160 to 164 and 165 to 169.

Also worthy of note is that the increase in applications is consistent across most racial groups. The number of Black/African American, White, and Hispanic/Latino applicants all increased by about 20 percent this year compared to last (22.3 percent, 20.8 percent, and 20.6 percent respectively). The largest spike, 57.2 percent, comes from Puerto Rican applicants followed by Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islanders at 31.7 percent. The number of Asian applicants increased, but by a smaller percentage than average at 13.7 percent. A prepared statement put forth by LSAC described these increases with optimism, “We are seeing strength across all demographic groups and locations. This year looks good in terms of having a robust and diverse legal education pipeline of candidates eager to use the law to create a better world. That’s good for our society.”

Admissions officers have struggled over how to react to the influx of highly qualified candidates this cycle. Many schools expanded their wait lists and made fewer outright acceptances. Notre Dame Law School, despite making fewer admissions offers, made headlines over its decision to offer admitted students seats in its class on a “first come, first served” basis to avoid over-enrollment. On April 6, 2021, Notre Dame’s admissions officers told admitted students that the incoming class was 67 percent full and that students would need to reserve their seat with a deposit or risk losing it. Just a few hours later, the admissions team informed students that the class was at 80 percent capacity and, by the end of the day, announced that all seats had been filled and the remaining students who had been admitted would be moved to a “continued interest” list.

While there are likely many reasons behind the jump in applications, law.com notes that admissions officers and consultants are pointing to both political and economic events of the past years, including: police killings of African Americans and the resulting national focus on racial inequalities, Trump’s presidency, national discourse on immigration policy, as well as the economic impact of coronavirus and the difficulty of finding strong entry-level employment. The article also notes the added convenience of registering and taking the LSAT-flex.

Most likely, the highly competitive nature of this admissions cycle will carry over into next year as many competitive applicants unable to find a seat among their top-choice schools, will reapply in the fall. According to law.com, over 28,000 have already registered to take the June LSAT with weeks left in the registration period.

For First Time Since 2010, Number of First-Year Law Students Has Increased Meaningfully

New student enrollment at law schools is up 2.9 percent from 2017, according to ABA data released last Friday. The number of first-year law matriculants at 122 schools is the same or higher than last year, while only 81 reported decreased class size. Total law school enrollment is up 1.2 percent from 2017, and enrollment in J.D. related programs, such as LLM, masters, or certificate programs, also increased by 8.2 percent year-over-year.

The increased enrollment is not surprising given the increase in law school applications during the 2017 application cycle, 8 percent, which was the first significant increase in law school applications since 2010. While some schools have ended up with significantly larger numbers of admitted students, others have become more selective. Within the top 25 schools, according to the U.S. News and World Report 2019 Rankings, 24 saw an increase in applications and all but two reported lower acceptance rates for applicants compared to 2017. On average, the acceptance rate for the top 25 was 21.4 percent in 2018 compared to 24.5 percent in 2017. Despite the increased selectivity, most of the top 25 schools did have slightly larger first-year classes than they did the previous year, with increases ranging between 1 and 157 students.

A law.com article predicts, based on early indicators, that the application pool will continue to grow for the 2019 matriculating class. LSAT numbers in June and July 2018 were up 30 percent compared to 2017; a similar uptick in LSAT-takers in the summer of 2017 preceded the higher application numbers seen this year.

Find data from all ABA accredited schools here: http://www.abarequireddisclosures.org/Disclosure509.aspx

Two Additional Law Schools to Accept GRE as Alternative to LSAT

Two additional law schools, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law and Georgetown University Law Center, have joined Harvard Law School and University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law in accepting the GRE for law school admissions. Georgetown will accept the GRE score as an alternative for the LSAT, for those wishing to matriculate in 2018, while Northwestern will accept the scores for students applying to the 2019 entering class.

Both schools conducted studies to determine the ability of the GRE to predict a student’s success within law school. Northwestern’s study was performed in conjunction with ETS, the administrator for the GRE, and found the GRE to be a strong predictor of success for first year Northwestern law students. Georgetown ran an independent study analyzing over ten-years of students’ academic performance and test scores and found that the GRE scores were equal to LSAT scores as predictors of academic success within the Law School.

The four schools that have opened their admissions process to include the GRE did so in an effort to diversify the applicant pool, as well as to reflect the evolving and multi-disciplinary nature of law. “Georgetown Law is committed to attracting the best and the brightest students of all backgrounds,” said Dean William M. Treanor. “We believe this change will make the admissions process more accessible to students who have great potential to make a mark here at Georgetown Law and in successful legal careers, but who might find the LSAT to be a barrier for whatever reason.”

The GRE is offered more frequently throughout the year and in numerous locations, and is often taken by students considering other graduate level educational options. By accepting the GRE, these law schools are helping to alleviate the financial burden of taking multiple tests for students thinking about different paths. Additionally, it may help to recruit students from “non-typical” law school backgrounds, including in-demand STEM students, international students, as well as those from a wider range of socio-economic backgrounds. When Harvard Law School started the pilot GRE program, then-Dean Martha Minow said, “For many students, preparing for and taking both the GRE and the LSAT is unaffordable. All students benefit when we can diversify our community in terms of academic background, country of origin, and financial circumstances. Also, given the promise of the revolutions in biology, computer science, and engineering, law needs students with science, technology, engineering and math backgrounds.  For these students, international students, multidisciplinary scholars, and joint-degree students, the GRE is a familiar and accessible test, and using it is a great way to reach candidates not only for law school, but for tackling the issues and opportunities society will be facing.”

The ABA held a hearing in July to consider specifying what test(s) are valid for law school admissions, which would change current language requiring merely “a valid and reliable admission test.”  While this could impact the ability for schools to accept the GRE as an admissions test alternative, a decision is unlikely to come in the short term. In the meantime, it appears likely that additional law schools will follow the path of these four and include the GRE as an accepted part of the admissions process.  

While the limited number of law schools accepting the GRE might make the LSAT a safer choice for current prospective law students, the broader lessons and values that these law schools are espousing are worth considering when putting together a law school application. Applicants should consider highlighting STEM minors or academic courses, unusual career or internship experiences, or other unique qualities that might add value and interest within the school’s student body.