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

Standardized Testing Continues to Evolve in MBA Admissions

In the world of MBA Admissions, standardized testing has become a lot less, well, standard. Admissions committees used to accept only the GMAT and/or GRE, but more options have opened up in the post-pandemic era including test waivers for past academic or professional performance, and a wider range of accepted tests including the Executive Assessment (EA) and even the MCAT or LSAT. 

The EA is a 90-minute exam, requires minimal preparation, and has historically been used for EMBA admissions. It is a good choice for applicants to full-time MBA programs who have already demonstrated strong quantitative skills through prior academic or professional experiences Today, even some elite schools such as Columbia, Duke Fuqua, and Michigan Ross are allowing students to submit EA scores in lieu of GRE and GMAT scores. 

In addition to the EA, some schools like Virginia’s Darden and NYU Stern are accepting LSAT, MCAT, and Dental Admission Test (DAT) scores. Others, like Georgetown McDonough, will allow applicants to submit expired GRE and GMAT scores. And many top ranked MBA programs are open to accepting the scores from the shorter versions of the GRE and GMAT exams. Chicago Booth, Stanford GSB, and Northwestern Kellogg will all allow applicants to submit GMAT Focus results this year. 

Harvard Business School is one of the few schools that have pointedly said they will not accept GMAT Focus scores for 2023-2024 admissions. And Wharton will accept GMAT Focus test scores dated January 31, 2024 or later, when the GMAT Focus has been merged with the legacy GMAT. 

The chart below shows the standardized tests that each school’s full-time two-year MBA program will accept in 2023-2024. Please note that some schools have not yet commented on when they will start to accept GMAT Focus scores. 

Shorter GRE Available for Test Takers in September

The Educational Testing Service (ETS) just announced that, as of September 22, 2023, registrants for the GRE will receive a shorter test. The refreshed exam will take under two hours, about half the current testing time, and is the first in a series of planned updates to the GRE. The changes are intended to improve the testing experience and reduce test-taker anxiety and fatigue. 

Specific updates to the test include:

• Removal of the “Analyze an Argument” (analytical writing) section

• Fewer questions in the Quantitative and Verbal Reasoning sections

• Removal of the unscored action

• Faster receipt of official scores (8-10 days)

“As we continue to introduce product innovations, we’re committed to balancing two things—maintaining rigor and validity, while improving the test-taker experience,” ETS CEO Amit Sevak said. 

The ABA voted to allow the use of the GRE as an alternative to the LSAT for law school applicants in 2021. The organization has not yet commented on the reduction in the test length and if the changes will impact the ABA’s decision to continue to allow the GRE in law school admissions. 

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

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.

Growth Slowing for GRE in Business School Admissions

Applicants’ use of the GRE over the GMAT in MBA admissions continues to grow, but at a slower rate, according to a recent Poets & Quants analysis. For the past six admissions cycles (since 2016), GRE submissions have been increasing, while GMAT score submissions have been sinking significantly. The last two years, though, have shown a slowing in the GRE growth rate. The flexible test submission policies enacted in response to the pandemic have likely impacted the trend. 

GMAT testing volumes have declined annually since 2012, with the exception of 2016 when the numbers increased slightly compared to the year before. Last year’s GMAT testing volume decreased by 47.7 percent compared to 2018, the last pre-pandemic testing year. And the 2021 testing numbers totaled less than one-third of GMAT’s record-high numbers in 2012. 

Amidst this decline, the GRE testing volumes steadily increased. However, in the past couple of years, this growth has slowed significantly. Poets & Quants points out that, “For every Virginia Darden School of Business, which saw a 10-percentage-point increase in its GRE submissions from MBA applicants in 2021, there is an Indiana Kelley School of Business, which reported an 11-point year-to-year decline.” The analysis notes that in 2019, an average of 13.5 percent of applicants submitted GRE scores at the Poets & Quants-ranked top 25 business schools, but that number jumped to 27.8 percent in 2020. Within schools ranked in the top ten, the GRE submission averages all increased in 2020. Dartmouth’s Tuck led in GRE submissions at 39 percent, followed by Yale and UC-Berkeley at 35 percent. 

This year, within the top 25 schools (24 reported data), the average proportion of GRE submissions increased only slightly, from 27.8 percent to 28.5 percent. And, within the top ten, the average submissions decreased slightly from 28.1 percent in 2020 to 27.9 percent. Stanford, Columbia Business School, Dartmouth Tuck, Duke Fuqua, Michigan Ross, and NYU Stern all reported lower percentages of GRE submissions this year compared to last.

The longer-term trend from 2016 to 2021, though, actually paints a clearer picture of the GRE’s growing place in MBA admissions. Of the top 52 Poets & Quants-ranked MBA programs, 34 schools have increased in the percentage of GRE submissions over time, while just eight have decreased. None of the programs with decreases are ranked in the top 25. 

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.” 

University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business Unveils Free, Pre-MBA Quantitative Readiness Course Online

Last month, the part-time MBA program at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business released a new “pathway to entry” for prospective students. Students may now opt to participate in a free, online pre-MBA Quantitative Readiness course and submit a final exam score of 80 percent or higher in lieu of GRE or GMAT scores. 

The Quantitative Readiness course is estimated to take between 20 and 30 hours to complete, and includes six self-paced modules covering various statistical techniques and applications. Each module includes practice questions and a quiz, followed by a three-hour final exam encompassing all modules. The course description states that the material is presented in such a way that students who spend the requisite time studying will be able to pass the course. 

In an interview with Poets & Quants, Patricia Russo, Managing Director of Part-Time MBA programs at Ross, said that the initial impetus behind the program was to drive applicant diversity by introducing a new mechanism to showcase readiness, one that may appeal to those with less traditional quantitative backgrounds. So far, with almost 200 enrollees in the first month, student feedback has shown that the program is meaningful. In addition to creating an alternative to standardized tests, it has provided students with the chance to refresh their quantitative skills and increase their confidence prior to entering an MBA program. It also gives them a chance to “test drive the rigor of an MBA”. Furthermore, as the program is an entryway to part-time programs where most students work in parallel, Russo notes that the act of taking the course provides prospective students visibility into the day-to-day work of juggling MBA coursework with their work and personal lives.

There is no current plan to extend the entryway to full-time applicants at Ross, but many part-time MBA program administrators from other universities have reached out with interest in the course. 

Role of Standardized Test Scores in MBA Admissions Evolves

During the 2020-2021 admissions season, many MBA programs introduced flexibility into their admissions process by waiving the GMAT/GRE requirement. And just last month, UVA’s Darden announced that it would extend its test-optional policy into the upcoming admissions cycle. The school’s current policy allows for students to submit GMAT/GRE or alternative test scores (including the LSAT, MCAT, or Executive Assessment). But students also have the option to request a waiver based on a provided alternative indicator of academic, personal, or professional achievement, which could include previous ACT/SAT scores.

Last year, Darden received around 1,300 waiver requests and admitted approximately 13 percent of the incoming class via test waiver. School representatives believe that the policy created a more equitable standard for admission while also “attracting a more diverse group of candidates.” Darden’s head of admissions, Dawna Clarke, also noted that Darden is employing data analytics to better understand student success and inform future policy decisions. Describing early results from Darden’s internal analysis on factors that are predictive of success in the first-year MBA curriculum, Clarke said, “Surprisingly, we found the verbal GMAT correlated more than the quant GMAT. The GPA correlated more than the GMAT. We found a correlation between SAT and ACT scores. And we found a correlation even with the interview. The interview was predictive of academic success… We are currently doing analytics for the first-year class to see how those people who opted to submit an alternative test or none at all are doing and that will help drive our policies.”

While it remains to be seen how other schools will address the GMAT/GRE requirement, the Wall Street Journal recently published an article describing a parallel decline in the role of standardized test scores in post-MBA recruiting. Historically, top consulting firms, McKinsey, Boston Consulting Group, and Bain, as well as reputable investment banks were thought to rely on the test scores as a filter for job applicants. This is changing. “I don’t mind one bit that campuses are waiving the GMAT requirement,” says Keith Bevans, a partner who leads recruiting at Bain, “Business schools are admitting a much broader range of talent, and I expect to find strong candidates this fall in places I wouldn’t normally see them.” He notes that while Bain still collects standardized test scores, they are not held against prospective employees, but rather incorporated into an internal analysis, which has found that higher scores do not always equate to higher productivity at Bain. Similarly, Danielle Bozarth, the lead partner for North America recruiting at McKinsey, also points out that MBA programs’ deprioritizing of test scores, “is aligned with our recruiting approach that [tests] are one of many ways to help assess a person’s skills or knowledge. We look for people who are good problem-solvers,” of which, she points out, there are many indicators.

While the role of standardized test scores is changing, prospective and current MBA students should carefully consider the entirety of their resume before determining whether to submit, or omit standardized test scores. We recommend thinking through the following questions:

• Are you a particularly strong, or weak, standardized test taker? Providing MBA programs and future employers with high scores on the GRE/GMAT will be beneficial even if they are considered a small component of your larger story.

• Do you feel that your GPA and academic credentials adequately reflect your capabilities as a student? If you have a weak GPA or other “soft” academic credentials on your resume, you may want to bolster these scores by taking the GMAT or GRE. This will give you the opportunity to showcase your ability to compete in a rigorous analytical and quantitative environment, and also prove your verbal competence.

• Does your resume include experiences that directly speak to your ability to critically assess complex situations under pressure and problem-solve? This could include success in case competitions, a role on the debate team, awarded scholarships or fellowships, and professional certifications, etc.

• Do you have any exceptional experiences that set you apart from other applicants by demonstrating a high level of skill, determination, and/or a commitment to success? For example: a role on a highly competitive sports team, a successful entrepreneurial venture, and/or documented professional success at a highly regarded company.

MBA Programs Seek to Increase Flexibility in Admissions Process

Earlier this month, Georgia Tech’s Scheller College of Business and the University of Maryland’s Smith School of Business announced that their full-time MBA programs would go test-optional for the 2020-2021 admission cycle. These two are the latest among a growing group of schools to waive standardized test requirements for eligible applicants. Like Northeastern University’s D’Amore-McKim School of Business, Georgia Tech’s Scheller plans to pilot the test-optional policy for all Fall 2021 applicants. The University of Maryland’s Smith School of Business is implementing a test waiver program where applicants who meet an existing set of criteria can opt out of providing standardized test scores. UVA Darden, University of Wisconsin-Madison’s School of Business, and Rutgers Business School have incorporated similar criteria-based waiver systems.

The schools point out that while they have used standardized test scores previously, to gauge an applicant’s ability to compete in the academic rigor of their program, they say their admissions teams remain confident in their holistic assessment of an applicant’s potential. UVA Darden is asking candidates who do not provide test scores to include alternative evidence that they will be able to succeed academically.

The schools hope that the policy will attract more applicants. After announcing its test-optional policy, UVA Darden reported receiving “an influx of qualified applicants who had been furloughed or laid off amid the pandemic.” Speaking to the Wall Street Journal, Blair Sanford, Assistant Dean for Full-Time MBA and Master’s Programs at Wisconsin-Madison said, “Some of the reasons why we decided to expand the policy in the first place still exist. The pandemic is still in place… In addition, it gives us a broader reach to attract qualified students in a difficult environment.”

The schools are also optimistic that the policy change will appeal to a more diverse swath of applicants, particularly those from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds. The costs of taking the standardized tests, including preparation, can be a barrier to otherwise well-qualified applicants. Maryam Alavi, Dean at Georgia Tech’s Scheller College of Business, in an interview with Poets & Quants said, “Beyond the complications COVID-19 has introduced in terms of access to exams, an overreliance on standardized test scores in MBA admissions decisions puts underrepresented minorities, individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, and first-generation college graduates at a disadvantage. We move forward confident that the change in this year’s admission process will attract our most diverse, qualified, and successful MBA cohort yet.”

According to the Wall Street Journal, however, many of the elite schools remain hesitant to move completely away from standardized testing, though most have begun accepting the results from online GRE and GMAT testing. And a few top-tier schools including NYU’s Stern, Columbia University’s Business School, and most recently, Vanderbilt University’s Owen, have opted to accept the Executive Assessment (EA) test as an alternative to the GMAT/GRE for full-time MBA applicants. The EA, which is much shorter at 40 questions and 90 minutes compared to the four-hour GRE or GMAT, generally requires less intensive preparation than its longer counterparts.

It will be interesting to see how things evolve from here, even among elite schools. Michael Robinson, Associate Director of MBA Admissions at Columbia Business School, has expressed interest in following the methods and outcomes of elite undergraduate institutions that have gone test-optional. At an MBA roundtable over the summer, Robinson said, “So, for us in admissions, it’s not that we want to basically admit people with the highest test average. It’s more about whether this person can succeed academically in that class. There are ways to get the right answer to that question without a GRE or GMAT or executive assessment. So I’m really curious to see what’s happening there. We’ll see what that looks like.”

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.

The GMAT V. The GRE: Which Test is Best for You?

For the past two years, respondents to the AIGAC MBA Applicant Survey have reported that the standardized test is the most challenging component of the MBA application. While there is no way to completely defray the stress associated with the GMAT or GRE (the top 50 business schools accept both), it is helpful to think critically about which one will provide you the best opportunity for success.

At Apply Point, we generally make the following recommendations:

You might prefer the GMAT if:

• Your strengths are quantitative, analytical
• You are adept at interpreting data presented in charts, tables, and text to solve problems
• You know that you want to attend an MBA, or business-related program, such as a MS Finance.

You might prefer the GRE if:

• Your strengths are verbal, writing
• You want to keep your graduate school options open. The GRE is accepted at most graduate programs, including a couple of law schools.

In Kaplan’s 2016 Survey of Business School Admissions Officers, 26 percent of admissions officers reported that those submitting a GMAT score have an admissions advantage over those who submit a GRE score. However, 73 percent said that neither exam has an advantage. In 2014, Harvard Business School’s Admission Director shared that the school looks carefully at the score components in combination with the student’s transcript and resume. As such, prospective students should use the test strategically to fill in any “gaps” or answer open questions that may stem from their transcript and/or work experience. For example, an applicant with an undergraduate degree and work experience in finance may need to bolster their application with strong verbal scores, while a communications major will want to demonstrate his/her ability to handle the rigors of the quantitative coursework in the MBA by providing a strong quantitative score on the GMAT/GRE.

Above all, an applicant should take the test they feel most comfortable with and are most likely to succeed on. Taking a diagnostic exam of each is a good place to start.