Isn't it among the LSAT, GMAT or the GRE Score after 2024; not a total removal of an exam? Suppose you took the GRE decades ago? But have 4.0 GPE of recent university degree?
My buddy who’s in law school told me that it is true they are no longer going to accept LSAT’s. I’m not sure what they are going to replace it with or what they will do.
Now they should remove the requirement to get an undergrad degree. So that students can further their education in law. Most won’t spend 8-12 years in school after they’ve already spent about 7 at that point.
@iFrankie: ha! Nice try, but we all know that lawyers and doctors are not the same. But, even if so, going to law school does not actually make you a lawyer. You would still need to satisfy the requirements to sit for the bar and then you’ll need to pass that too. If a student is capable/competent enough to do that without undergrad, why not allow said student to skip undergrad?
This may sound terrible but I feel like people who get a time accommodations and those who don't shouldn't be grouped together. Everyone can score higher with more time (less stress, more time to actually think through the questions or read through the passages with full understanding etc...). I know the idea is that this would be discriminatory because it could make those with accommodations look less then, but I feel like the amount of people getting accommodations these days inflates the score range. Maybe I'm wrong. But I'd bet that if someone investigated they'd find that those with accommodations have higher scores on average and have to re-take the test less times. I'm not saying don't give people accommodations, I just think everyone should be able to showcase their best work on LSAT. The test is literally built for you not to finish it to the best of your ability. More time doesn't give you the answer but it ensures the score you get actually represents your capabilities. Heck, even removing the timed sectioned approach and just giving the 2.35hrs roughly that LSAT takes on it's own would level the playing field. Some sections need more time than others for different people. I don't think they have to remove LSAT to be equitable, I think they need to allow people to do it in a way that works for them. We don't all work the same, so we don't all take test the same.
Why shouldn’t it be easy or easier to get in? Going to law school doesn't automatically make you an attorney. Students will still need to pass the bar for their state and any state they intend to practice law. That isn’t rigorous enough, eh? 😏
The LSAT is specially used to put black and brown people at a disadvantage. It is used to weed out those who don't have resources. Most of us lack the funds, support, and resources to succeed at the LSAT. We don't want it to be easy, we want it to be attainable to everyone no matter their background, age, race and more.
LSAT has nothing to do with races 😂 LSAT is just a way to be judged. A lawyer isn’t taking tests (other than the bar) like the LSAT during their employment lol So why? What point? For the admissions to "evaluate the candidate’s performance in law school"-- just a way of saying "we going to judge you"
@chrisdavis6264 it actually has a lot to do with races and disadvantages. You wouldn't know if it doesn't apply to you which is why you have the thought process you do about it not correlating.
Isn't it among the LSAT, GMAT or the GRE Score after 2024; not a total removal of an exam? Suppose you took the GRE decades ago? But have 4.0 GPE of recent university degree?
My buddy who’s in law school told me that it is true they are no longer going to accept LSAT’s. I’m not sure what they are going to replace it with or what they will do.
Can you share the source of this information?
Google it babe. It’s everywhere
That’s an amazing story for the person who made a 173. That’s awesome
Hey bro tell me the resources you have used
Now they should remove the requirement to get an undergrad degree. So that students can further their education in law. Most won’t spend 8-12 years in school after they’ve already spent about 7 at that point.
Undergrad should be considered though, it’s like saying Dr’s shouldn’t go through all the years of school and still operate on a person.
@iFrankie: ha! Nice try, but we all know that lawyers and doctors are not the same. But, even if so, going to law school does not actually make you a lawyer. You would still need to satisfy the requirements to sit for the bar and then you’ll need to pass that too. If a student is capable/competent enough to do that without undergrad, why not allow said student to skip undergrad?
Yahhh😂😂😂😂❤❤❤
This may sound terrible but I feel like people who get a time accommodations and those who don't shouldn't be grouped together. Everyone can score higher with more time (less stress, more time to actually think through the questions or read through the passages with full understanding etc...). I know the idea is that this would be discriminatory because it could make those with accommodations look less then, but I feel like the amount of people getting accommodations these days inflates the score range. Maybe I'm wrong. But I'd bet that if someone investigated they'd find that those with accommodations have higher scores on average and have to re-take the test less times. I'm not saying don't give people accommodations, I just think everyone should be able to showcase their best work on LSAT. The test is literally built for you not to finish it to the best of your ability. More time doesn't give you the answer but it ensures the score you get actually represents your capabilities. Heck, even removing the timed sectioned approach and just giving the 2.35hrs roughly that LSAT takes on it's own would level the playing field. Some sections need more time than others for different people. I don't think they have to remove LSAT to be equitable, I think they need to allow people to do it in a way that works for them. We don't all work the same, so we don't all take test the same.
They should keep the LSAT. Law school isn't supoosed to be easy to get into.
Why shouldn’t it be easy or easier to get in? Going to law school doesn't automatically make you an attorney. Students will still need to pass the bar for their state and any state they intend to practice law. That isn’t rigorous enough, eh? 😏
The LSAT is specially used to put black and brown people at a disadvantage. It is used to weed out those who don't have resources. Most of us lack the funds, support, and resources to succeed at the LSAT. We don't want it to be easy, we want it to be attainable to everyone no matter their background, age, race and more.
LSAT has nothing to do with races 😂
LSAT is just a way to be judged. A lawyer isn’t taking tests (other than the bar) like the LSAT during their employment lol
So why? What point? For the admissions to "evaluate the candidate’s performance in law school"-- just a way of saying "we going to judge you"
@chrisdavis6264 it actually has a lot to do with races and disadvantages. You wouldn't know if it doesn't apply to you which is why you have the thought process you do about it not correlating.