Another Law School Not Requiring LSAT for Some Applicants
Remember when we talked about the University of Michigan's program to offer admission to up to 10 Michigan undergrads with GPAs of at least 3.8 per year, no LSAT required? I wondered out loud whether other schools would follow suit, and it appears that at least one is doing so.
The University of Illinois College of Law has announced a similar program through which a certain number of the school's undergraduates will be offered early admission to its law school based on undergraduate performance, essays, and interviews that consider the "motivation and maturity" of students--no LSAT required.
"We were worried that we were missing out of some of the best University of Illinois graduates," said Paul Pless, assistant dean for admissions and financial aid.
So now I'm wondering, who's next? Is this a good trend? Please share your opinions in the Law School Forum!
Read more at Another Law School to Admit Select Students Without the LSAT.
Comments
I hated the LSAT and thought it was irrelevant to my abilities when I took it — but now, in my 4th year out of law school, I do have to admit it did reflect law school in an odd but relevant way: it’s the first exposure for many people to an intense exam situation, which is then replicated in law school exams and then the bar exam (both, I would argue, even more stressful). I found those types of exam very different than the exams I took in undergrad – and, it seems to me that many people who really struggled with the stress and time elements of the LSAT really struggled with law school exams. For example, I have a friend with a PhD who just came apart in the LSAT preparation process. When several people told her than law school exams were going to be the same type of intense timed pressure, she decided law school was not for her. She’s an example of someone who would likely do very well in a non-LSAT application process, but not necessarily be a good law school candidate. Another thing to think about with the LSAT is that it tests reading comprehension — I thought that was silly at the time and I do think the passages chosen are silly, but again, if an applicant cannot read at LSAT speed, chances are the masses of law school reading may be too much. Obviously these are broad generalizations, and I still think the LSAT is silly, but it’s not quite as silly as I thought.
You make an excellent comparison between the LSAT and law school exams, which, as you note, are almost always entirely what grades are based on. I read something recently that the LSAT isn’t great at predicting law school performance, though, so I’ll have to post about that soon….
It’s interesting, though, that now taking LSAT prep classes is *so* common–it’s basically the norm whereas even when I took the LSAT 11 years ago, it wasn’t as common. I imagine that might mean scores are getting closer (and perhaps higher) which could make it more and more difficult for law schools to make decisions based on those scores. That’s just a guess though; I haven’t read anything on that, but I’ll look around!
Thanks so much for your input
That is SO true re: LSAT classes — I took the LSAT fall of 2000 and I was still in the minority in terms of people taking a course.
You know — I don’t think the LSAT is any indication of performance on law school exams *except* in the skillset of reading fast, thinking fast, and doing so with the pressure of “this is it” (whether score, grade or bar passage).
A lot of this is obviously personal – in my case, I never had exam anxiety until the LSAT (and by then I had taken many exams, including the GRE) and subsequently law school. Fortunately, fast reading and thinking saved me
Fast reading and thinking are *definite* assets in the LSAT and law school; I can’t imagine someone doing extremely well without either of them, but luckily with lots of practice, it is possible to improve in both areas (IMHO)