Link: http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/law-schools-drop-lsat/54f6091f2b8c2ac66a0010c7
I have heard of another fairly high ranked law school who will accept a certain number of ITS undergrads without the LSAT score. I think that is not necessarily bad because the admissions office can tell from a transcript from its own school how well the applicant really did and can talk to professors it knows personally and ask whether that student is someone they should admit. That seems as valuable as the LSAT score of a stranger. I don’t want to name the school because I heard it from a good source but don’t have confirmation. Keep in mind that some undergrad schools like Wake Forest are SAT/ACT optional. My son applied there but sent in his scores since they were good (he was accepted but did not go there). But those schools don’t say scores are irrelevant just that the are not necessary. My guess if two students are otherwise equal but one sends in high scores and other sends in no scores, the high scorer would have an advantage. So schools can consider someone without an LSAT score but those with high scores may still fare better.
We’re then going to need research on whether alternate tests actually have any predictive value. If that research is conclusive, I would predict that the LSAT would then become less and less popular and, as a result, accelerated law programs would explode.
And the article also points to the collapse in both applicant pools and matriculants to law school.
Well, since the ABA still requires the LSAT for all but special cases, it ain’t going away any time soon. 
btw: just bcos I’m a cynic in this area, methinks the main focus is to enable law schools to cherry-pick students that they really want (for whatever reason) regardless of lower test score.
@bluebayou: The purpose of not including the LSAT is to bring in students, paying full tuition, who would otherwise be ineligible for their effect on the law school’s LSAT medians. This is not a recent phenomenon. See, e.g., [wolverine scholars](The Life and Death of the Michigan 'Wolverine Scholars' Program - Above the Law).
^^how do you know what the real “purpose” is? But more importantly, how is your point any different than mine? Seriously?
sure, law schools want full payers, but they also want people who are just poor test takers that meet their other goals. The ABA regs allow a LS to accept someone with a 85th % of high school test (~26/1880); I’d bet big cybermoney that such a person could study for months and never clear UM’s median LSAT score.
Note: these test score minimums are in Michigan’s bottom quartile for undergrad matriculants.
They also can accept such a person who only has a 3.5 GPA (Michigan football player perhaps?)
btw: if UM was really that interested in full-payers, they could easily accept more transfers and shrink the 1L class.
Agreed 100% with Demosthenes. Law schools want to be able to admit students who would’ve performed poorly on the LSAT. By exempting them from taking it in the first place, they can prevent these students’ LSAT #s from lowering the average LSAT score of admitted students (and still take their tuition dollars).
It seems like the top law schools reject students with fairly good LSATs, like a 167 or even higher. So you think they would prefer someone they assume is a poor LSAT test taker (would maybe get a 155) than the 167 applicant so they don’t hurt their rankings?
The top law schools have their pick of people who they believe are likely to succeed in law school and on the bar exam (and in the legal profession). I’m not sure they want applicants they assume would do poorly on the LSAT.
Just because a school does not required LSAT score does not necessarily mean they would not take it into account. In other words, if two applicants had similar grade points, one had a high LSAT and the other had no LSAT, I would think the former would have an advantage. This happens in undergrad schools that don’t require SATs or ACTs. Wake Forest is one but I don’t really know anything about its acceptance analysis I just assumed that would be the case. I believe Washington University in St. Louis is going to start not requiring LSAT scores for its own undergrads. I can see that because because a school can call up its own facility and get very honest and thoughtful opinions with respect to whether that student should be admitted.
@2135ar: If the former student had an LSAT that would help a school’s rankings, that applicant would obviously win over a student with no LSAT but the same GPA. That is not for whom this program is intended. This program lets schools grab reverse splitters at full price without paying for low LSATs.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but of ABA approved schools, I thought only Iowa and SUNY/Buffalo were doing this(taking applicants w/o the LSAT) and it only applies to applicants from their respective undergraduate schools.
If im being honest this is just gaming by the law schools at a new level.
For applicants I would really scrutinize practices like this and as if you are really getting a good deal. I’m inclined to believe that this will mostly if not entirely be used by schools on the lower end of the rankings. while there are certainly good reasons to attend those schools, for a large number of students attending the school simply doesn’t make sense when you look at the expected career outcomes from those institutions.
I’m worried that some undergraduate students will be swayed by these practices and not take the LSAT, which is not really in their best interest since for any students who may want a chance to work at large firms are other selective institutions, it’s worth the risk up front to (1) take the LSAT (2) see how well they do and (3) try to get into the best school they’re capable of getting into.
Do you think these schools require you to report score if you did take LSAT? Could just be that you don’t have to report it if it is low. Seems crazy to not take it at all because you might do well. I have heard that it prevents people from having to study and pay for classes and exams. Seems a bit short sighted. And if the only place you can go without taking the exam is your undergrad school it is putting a lot of eggs in one basket. On the other hand if your grades are very good maybe you can assume you will be accepted there.
cranky:
I think the ABA changed the rules last year to enable a LS to accept a % of its own undergrads without a LSAT…
Not only gaming rankings, but financial merit aid as well. They don’t have to offer you money if you don’t have any LSAT score and thus, cannot go anywhere else. Alternatively, if you “know” that you have a lock on the local LS by virtue of grades, maybe you don’t study too hard for the LSAT, take it and just do ‘ok’. That’s perfect for hometown LS. They can ignore your score for reporting purposes, but they also know that your score is not good enough to get into a peer LS, so they they don’t have to offer you any money to stay.
I was aware of the rule change, but am unsure how many law schools-other than SUNY/Buffalo and Iowa-are actually doing this.
In any event, the importance of the LSAT(mentioned about 2/3 the way down):
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-15/the-smartest-people-are-opting-out-of-law-school
I think it’s starting with those two schools, but is likely to spread as time goes on and law schools become more desperate for applicants.
Here’s what, IMO, is the key excerpt from the article you posted:
“The top is eroding and the bottom is growing,” says Organ, adding that schools risk churning out graduates with less of a shot at becoming lawyers. “Four years from now, when those people graduate and take the bar, you’ll have a much smaller percentage who are likely to pass the bar and a much larger percentage that are likely to fail.” Research has shown that LSAT scores generally correlate with success during the first year of law school and with scores on the bar exam.
Looks like Hawaii Law is joining the list of schools that don’t require the LSAT.