Saturday, July 15, 2017

ABA Will Decide Whether Member Diploma Mills Can Use GRE as Alternative Law School Entrance Exam

More Ways to Get Into Law School: On July 13, the ABA Journal published a Stephanie Francis Ward article entitled “Why should law schools have to require LSAT or GRE? Law deans ask the question.” Focus on the portion below:

“The Newton, Pennsylvania-based Law School Admission Council, which administers the LSAT, also submitted a statement (PDF) ahead of the hearing. Law schools have relied on the test for more than 50 years to set a common standard for candidate evaluation, according to the LSAC, and the test is based on solid research and evaluated on a continuing basis. The statement was signed by Christina B. Whitman, chair of its board of trustees, and Kellye Y. Testy, its president and chief executive officer. 

If another admissions test is as good as the LSAT, the statement reads, the LSAC has no objection to law schools using it, and the organization “does not seek a monopoly” in legal education. 

“Today, many law schools are experiencing economic stress as they adjust to changes in the admission and employment markets stemming from structural change in the profession as well as from continuing challenges to the rule of law in society,” the statement reads. “It is tempting during such times of stress to seek to reduce standards of quality, and often these reductions in standards come forward as arguments for innovation and deregulation.” 

“Like the council, and I think everyone in this room, we support equality and fairness in legal education,” Joan E. Van Tol, the LSAC’s general counsel, said at the hearing. “If other tests meet those goals, we support those as well, but we urge the council to set high standards for both validity and reliability.” 

David Yassky, the law school dean at Pace University, is opposed to the proposed revision to Standard 503. “Serious law school applicants,” he wrote in his statement (PDF), will likely continue taking the LSAT, and most if not all law schools will continue to accept it as an entrance exam.” [Emphasis mine]

The law schools are tired of getting drilled for their declining admi$$ion$ “standards.” Law School Transparency has detailed reports on each ABA-accredited diploma factory. Applicants can see that the toilets keep accepting lower LSAT scores. Foolishly, some may be happy that a 143 score might get into a dozen cesspools.

Other Coverage: On July 13, 2017, Kathryn Rubino posted an ATL entry labeled “In The LSAT v. GRE Battle, Should The ABA Get Involved?” Check out this opening:

“There’s a battle brewing between the LSAT and the GRE. After years of being the only game in town, the LSAT is now feeling pressure as some law schools have made a move to accept the GRE in lieu of the law school standard. The trend started with Arizona Law, citing decreased barriers to entry, which coincidentally coincides with a decrease in applications, particularly for lower-tier law schools (and some argue that lower barriers aren’t necessarily a good thing). Then Harvard Law shook up the game by deciding to accept the GRE, and all of a sudden, the GRE for law students became mainstream. 

This week, the ABA will hold a hearing on a proposed rule change to Standard 503, which currently allows law schools to accept alternatives to the LSAT (read: the GRE) if they can prove another test is valid and reliable. If the rule change passes, schools will no longer be able to decide an alternate test is valid and reliable, that determination would be the sole province of the ABA. That’s a… major change, as Jeff Thomas, executive director of pre-law programs at Kaplan Test Prep, notes: 

The American Bar Association Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar is set to debate one of the most controversial amendments to its Standards in years. If the ABA adopts its proposed amendments to Standard 503, it will immediately stifle law school attempts to circumnavigate the current LSAT requirement and at least temporarily halt schools’ desire to use the GRE for admissions purposes. However, incorporated into the proposed changes is a call for a process for the ABA to vet admissions exams other than the LSAT, which may set the stage for a sweeping ruling allowing law schools to accept the GRE in the future. Rejecting the proposed amendments will likely result in trickling adoption of the GRE. At Kaplan, we’ll be tracking the issue closely to ensure that students have the most accurate and up-to-date information possible to make informed decisions.

Given this looming change that would radically alter the current trend of legal education, what do law schools think about it? According to a Kaplan survey of 119 law schools, including 18 of the top 30 as ranked by U.S. News & World Report, the opinions are split: 

Of the nearly 120 law schools polled, 61 percent say the ABA should make a statement saying that law schools are either permitted or not permitted to allow applicants to submit GRE scores as an alternative to scores from the LSAT, long the only sanctioned law school admissions exam. Twenty-seven percent say it should not; and 13 percent are unsure.” [Emphasis mine]

The schools want to be able to use different exams as way to get more asses in seats. But they want the backing of the ABA, to help justify their decision to take in applicants who never sat for the LSAT exam.

Conclusion: The American Bar Association will continue to look out for the law school pigs. Expect this organization to allow member schools to accept the GRE, as an alternative to the LSAT. After all, they realize that having a bunch of commodes with 25th percentile scores of 145 – or worse – is embarrassing to the cartel. Now that several respectable in$titution$ accept this exam, it seems this will become standard practice. If this happens, don’t be surprised if ABA schools strongly encourage borderline applicants to take the Graduate Record Examination, instead of the LSAT.


  1. Read this:

    "A proposed requirement that accredited law schools use a valid and reliable entrance exam as determined by the American Bar Association has been called into question by a group of law school deans."

    Oh, no, law skules shouldn't have to use a test validated by their scam-enabling overlords, should they, scam-deans? No, each law skule should get to decide for itself what is valid and reliable. After all, law skules have demonstrated fine judgment over the years, and of course they have the best interests of their students and the public at heart.


    Really, the opposition to this milquetoasty proposal is a demand for free rein. The law skules want no oversight, but of course continued access to the public coffers. Well, that's not how it goes, scamsters.

  2. Harvard performed a real service for the law-school scam by accepting the GRE in lieu of the LSAT. A multiplicity of objective measures will create confusion and complicate both individual and comparative assessments of law schools' admissions practices.

    Harvard too is a toilet.

    1. While I disagree with your assertion that Harvard is a toilet, I will point out that Harvard's embrace of the GRE is probably a move to help its large number of alumni who are law professors to stay employed. I'm sure Harvard itself will not be accepting low GRE scorers any more than it accepts low LSAT scorers now.

  3. “Today, many law schools are experiencing economic stress as they adjust to changes in the admission and employment markets stemming from structural change in the profession as well as from continuing challenges to the rule of law in society.”

    Two problems with this statement.

    1) There was no structural change in the legal profession. Prior to 2011, law schools published fictitious employment statistics. Some of the commenters from the previous post discussed the lack of jobs for toilet law grads going back to the 1990s. What changed in recent years was law schools tried to claim all of their grads were employed in six figure paying jobs right after the Great Recession. This raised suspicions that law schools were lying about employment outcomes. When the law school scamblog movement began raising red flags about law school, the ABA caved to public pressure and required law schools to publish accurate employment data. We now have several years of data that show that many grads of toilet law schools never have a chance.

    2) The challenge to the rule of law in society is that law schools, deans, and professors do not give one damn about the rule of law. As has been pointed out countless times, based on the unscrupulous behavior of these pigs, the deans and professors just care about getting asses in seats so they can cash massive six figure checks for a few hours of work per week. Prosecutor offices and public defenders offices have plenty of applicants. Hell, a friend of mine who works in Army JAG told me they have 6 applicants for every opening right now. (That is a job where you already have fewer applicants because a segment of the potential applicant pool does not want to deploy to a combat zone or does not meet weight/medical requirements.) The challenge to the rule of law is that prosecutor, public defender, and legal aid offices are overworked and underfunded. But rather than increasing funding to these agencies so they can hire more people, the Federal government would rather give imbeciles $250k to attend toilet law schools, even though the grad will most likely never practice law or repay the debt. This results in fat six figure paychecks to law professors for doing little work, while prosecutors and public defenders make far less money while they put in long hours working on murder cases, rape cases, child molestation cases, and other serious crimes.

    I never had a legal career after graduating with good grades from a toilet law school. I am happy that no legal employer wanted my ass. I was able to pursue a medical career instead. But I have friends who have been in law for several years now. And I have met some great attorneys through my friends and had conversations with them. I find it absurd that one of the best criminal defense attorneys who is paid by other criminal defense attorneys to teach CLEs, is deemed unqualified to teach law students by law schools. This defense attorney is sought after by fellow attorneys to learn case strategy. But this person did not attend a T7, so no law school will hire them. I met a big city prosecutor with decades of experience currently in a management position. They still try the big murder and other violent crime cases. They are sought after to teach at prosecutor courses. They are frustrated because they genuinely want to teach law students, but they did not go to a T7. They have reached out to law schools and been rebuffed.
    Law schools don’t give a damn about actually training their students. Law schools will only hire grads of prestigious law schools to be professors, because they want these credentialed people to publish worthless law review articles. The schools believe that these articles elevate the ranking and prestige of the toilet school. If you read the law professor blogs, these lazy pigs whine about having to actually teach students and claim they need to be given time to publish articles so they can have a chance to get hired by elite law schools. What an honorable group of people!

    1. Why won't law skules won't hire that lawyer to teach?

      1) He's too old. The typical law profe$$or went from kindergarten straight through to the JD, with an élite boarding school or aristocratic public high school along the way, then spent no more than 2½ years in clerkships, white-shoe firms, or both. Age 29 is about the limit, unless the little palsgrave instead went for a PhD, in which case the acceptable age could run as high as 32.

      2) He has sullied himself with practice (the horror!). Legal hackademia wants nothing to do with the practice of law; it instead dallies in neo-Rawlsian theories of hip-hop and other pseudo-intellectual pursuits of no significance whatsoever.

      Either of those reasons would suffice.

    2. You are so lucky you were unable to get a legal job when you were young enough to embark on a medical career. Many of us went to elite law schools and worked in big law for many years, only to be pushed out in our 50s. At that point, we were too old for medical school and had no good employment options. So those elite law degrees that are worth $180,000 a year for a recent law school grad may produce an income that hovers near the $63,000 median for all first year law grads after age 50.

      I know multiple Harvard and Yale grads who are struggling after age 50. One spent a decade as a temp before finding a full-time, permanent legal job after being laid off.

      Law really stinks as a career for a good portion of grads. Graduates of top law schools who are no longer young are not exempt from the horrific unemployment and underemployment triggered by the huge oversupply of lawyers.

    3. "Palsgrave." Another great word, Old Guy. Had to look it up. Bonus points for using "Palsgrave" and "Mephitic" in the same sentence. Double-bonus points for using it a sentence aimed at saving OLs from a life-time of debt and disaster.

  4. Law is a tough profession. And that's coming from someone that graduated from a top 20 school almost 15 years ago. The ones who stick around for more than 10 years are the diehards. It's not unusual to see solos in their 40s still making under $50K. And it's not because they stink or can't drum up business. It's that the market is glutted. So now lawyers are offering low rates for representation. And doing things on a piecemeal basis. About 10 months ago a small time traffic court judgeship opened up. And I kid you not you had almost every experienced member of the local bar apply for it. The guy who got it had donated to so many political campaigns over the years. And get this, he closed up his practice in less than a month.

    And in biglaw it was always churn 'n burn through associates. But back in the day it was more like after 5-8 years of practice. Now you're seeing biglaw associates out on their butts after 3-5 years. The window to make partner is narrowing. Automation is altering a lot of industries, but most of those industries don't require you to spend 7 years in school or to take out a ton of loans. I don't recommend law school to anyone unless they have some means and great connections and they know from experience in law firm that they absolutely want to practice law. Too many go to law school with no idea of what they want to do. And that should not be happening if you're in a professional school.

  5. Department of Education could end this: How about a rule that you MUST have an LSAT of 148 or higher to get a Federal Student Loan? That'll end this right away.

    1. Only 148? That's the 36th percentile. I'd start at 154 (the 60th percentile) and move up to 160 (the 80th percentile) within a few years.

    2. 148 is way too low, it needs to be based on percentile score. Anything under 80 percent should be denied. Law is a serious profession and should be treated as such. The idiots in charge of legal education have polluted the educational system for decades to the point where people who are mentally deficient and can't break 140 are getting accepted. This is nuts.

    3. That would be nice. I'd start with a higher score, though. It's not happening at all under DeVos.


      This is a good discussion. In the end, the threshold should be higher than a score of 148 on the LSAT.

      "LSAT Score / Percentile Conversion Chart

      For example, using the table below if you scored 65 questions right out of 101 questions on the LSAT your LSAT Raw Score is 65, your LSAT Scaled Score is 157, and your Percentile Rank is 70.9%ile. So while you got 65% of the questions right you are in the 70.9th percentile meaning your LSAT Scaled Score was better than 70.9% of the people who wrote the LSAT in the last three years. Note that the table below is a guide and minor variances will occur with each writing of the LSAT. Table updated as of March 4, 2011."

      I have highlighted the following figures. The three numbers on each line are Raw Score, Scaled Score, and Percentile Rank, respectively:

      "53-54 150 44.3%
      51-52 149 40.3%
      50 148 36.3%"

      If you can only manage to outperform about 36 percent of test-takers, then that should not be good enough to gain one entry into law school - in a just world. So what if one wants to be a lawyer. It is much better to be denied at the entrance point, than it is to incur outrageous sums of student debt and then fail to enter the "profession."

      The fact that the law schools continue to accept applicants with LSAT scores of 145 is a clear sign that they don't care what happens to those students upon graduation. Imagine if accredited U.S. medical schools admitted people who only performed better on the MCAT than 36% or 43% of other test-takers.

    5. A 148 requirement would still knock out about 20% of current students, and being so low it wouldn't allow the law schools much room to whine and complain about there being more to academics than tests. It could be jacked up to 150 easily. It would have helped if it were set at 161, which would have been good enough to keep me out of law school...

    6. I wrote on this subject a few months ago:

      I recommended replacing the scaled score with the percentile. Applicants would have to confront their own lousiness, and law schools' published data would reveal even to a casual observer the absence of meaningful standards. Cooley, for example, draws more than a quarter of its class from the bottom 10%, and more than three-quarters from the bottom 75%. That fact is not apparent to someone who sees only the LSAT scores (138 and 147, respectively).

    7. Were I the Secretary of Education, I would go much further than just to require a certain LSAT score to get a loan. I would make Federal loans available only for students in academic fields where there is a shortage of entry-level graduates. In a glutted field such as the law, I would make ABSOLUTELY NO LOANS!!!!!

  6. Goes to show that over 180 law schools are total garbage, and will do anything to get otherwise unqualified people to take on massive student loan debt to attend. Of course, the usual suspects i.e. law deans will argue that more "diversity" is needed in the profession.

    Meanwhile, it will still be competitive as hell (no matter what test they choose to accept) to get into a top 8 school. And make no mistake, anything outside of the top 8 is simply not worth the cost of attendance anymore.

    Don't fall for the siren's song, kids. Law school is largely a bad investment for those who aren't independently wealthy to begin with.

  7. If the ABA allows schools to take the GRE and the LSAT does that mean other test companies could be used too?

    1. Before long the law skules will accept the Pap test.

    2. Does Cooley even require a test?

    3. Does Cooley require the LSAT? "Yes, because it is required by the American Bar Association Standards for accreditation of law schools" (from a FAQ at Cooley's Web site). That answer suggests that Cooley might not require it if not for the ABA's pernickety rule.

      At least until recent years, Cooley used the "Cooley Admissions Index", a straightforward weighted sum of LSAT score and undergraduate GPA, to determine admissions. Perhaps it still does so, but no information is available at the Web site. Discounts (incorrectly called "scholarships"), however, still are awarded in that fashion.

  8. Bar passage rates are still going to be shit no matter what test is accepted, because the caliber of students will not change.

  9. This "solution" is still trying to treat a gunshot wound with a bandaid and won't help the diploma mills in the longterm. Use of the GRE for entry might lessen scrutiny for a year or so, but it won't improve the bar passage rates of the mouthbreathers the diploma mills admit. Fortunately, the state bar exams don't seem inclined to reduce standards despite the best efforts of some of the diploma mills. Any boost in enrollment will be temporary at best.

    1. Law skules obviously are acting only for the short term.

  10. It is quite true, kids, that the burnout rate in law is quite high.

    Even if you do get a conventional law job, the overall stress coming from the clients , to the billing requirements, to your bosses, can be overwhelming. Sure, those who "win" a job in Biglaw start out at 160 or 170, but that's working 80+hours a week with no life. And be prepared to take that laptop to the beach with you.

    The rest of you will be in sh!tlaw generally, many soloing. The casualty rate there is extremely high, and those lasting more than 3-5 years are, yes, diehards. Think long and hard about how much you really want to be an attorney before committing, especially to non-elite law schools.

    Because soloing is in your future, and it's a hard way to make a living!

  11. Let's face it. Another reason they want to accept the GRE is to make it more difficult to correlate poor LSAT scores with poor performance on the Bar, and with poor job prospects/performance.

  12. The harsh truth is that the war is over and the scammers have won.
    1. This fake controversy over LSAT v. GRE is just the beginning; if the GRE is acceptable-and I'd bet the house it will be-soon it will be the GMAT. And every year thousands of wanna be dentists and physicians don't get into their school of choice, so the DAT/MCAT will be found to be sufficient. As the months go by, pretty soon all standardized test will be acceptable. Bottom line: the ABA will do everything in its power to assist the cartel(it's actually part of the cartel) and its power is considerable, since it can accredit any school. Until DOE takes this power away, the ABA will do gymnastics to keep all ABA approved schools open.
    2. Local politicians love law schools, and want to keep building them(see UNT/the proposed ls in Tacoma, etc), and will do everything in their considerable power to keep open law schools open-after all, they are "economic engines" with all that student spending.
    3. The only entity with the power to stop the scam-the federal Department of Education-has clearly signaled that it will not do so. The grad loans will keep flowing, and ultimately the taxpayers will bear the burden of keeping the fat cats fat and supporting three years of worthless schooling for feckless liberal artists. Unless and until DOE does something, the scam will continue.
    And while it is hoped that this analysis is wrong, it isn't. Charlotte still hasn't closed; 18 months ago Charleston was finished; two years ago Vermont was done. All three are still open.

    1. Although generally pessimistic, I think that your forecast may be too bleak.

      Already Whittier and Indiana Tech have closed, and realistically Hamline (or was it Mitchell?) has as well. The Cooley chain closed a campus years ago. All three InfiLaw scam-schools are in trouble, with Charlotte likely to lose its license in a couple of weeks. Appalachian is drying up, with only 38 students in last year's entering class. Other law schools may be teetering on the brink.

      Yet you are right to point out that the law-school scam won't collapse soon. Idiots still flock to La Verne and Thomas Jefferson even though almost half of the graduates are unemployed. The Department of Education and the American Bar ASSociation have done little about the scandalous abuse and rip-off that the law-school scam perpetrates.

      That said, I doubt whether many new law schools will open. Certainly cUNT is a monstrous travesty, but the example of Indiana Tech may discourage the creation of upstart toilets.

    2. Anon 8:22 is absolutely correct on point 2. Local and state politicians love Federal money. Federal money is a win-win. You get the benefits of government spending while keeping state taxes relatively low. NPR had a story four years ago that state governments paid a company to move welfare recipients onto disability. States do this because they pay part of the bill for welfare, but pay zero for disability. The Federal government pays disability.

      Although we may view these toilet law schools as cesspits saddling legions of grads with a lifetime of debt, local and state politicians view these cesspits as a source of Federal dollars. Law profs, deans, and student loan conduits help prop up the local economy. Toilet law schools host symposiums on hip hop and the law and other events that draw travelers to the region. The million dollar premium does not go to the toilet JD grad. The million dollar premium goes to everyone profiting off the student loan system.

      I disagree that the war is over and the scammers have one. Law schools must now accurately publish their pitiful employment stats. This led to a huge decrease in applicants. Many law profs have lost their jobs. Law prof hiring is way down. The typical law prof (double Ivy, Federal clerkship, two year stint in big law) is bemoaning the changes in legal education. They are scared of losing their jobs, they are upset that schools are hiring JD/PhDs who did not attend a T7, and they are frustrated that it is more difficult to progress in their career by obtaining employment with elite schools. The law schools embarrassed themselves by drastically lowering admissions standards. Their grads are failing the bar in record numbers. The states have not acquiesced in making the bar exam easier.

      The war against the law schools is not a conventional war. This has always been an insurgency. An incredible insurgency of bloggers who went up against powerful legal academics with access to write OpEd pieces in the NYT and Washington Post (to some extent Trump’s fake news claims was correct about these newspapers - they allowed law school pigs to publish fake news about law school). The scamblog movement even overcame the powerful cultural views that all lawyers are rich and work in glamorous buildings on important cases. The law school pigs were a lot like General Westmorland in Vietnam. Westmorland was predicting victory was near. But then Tet happened exposing his lies. The law school pigs were predicting that a turnaround in the legal market was imminent. 2016 would finally be the year there were more jobs than law grads. But then 2016 was another year of disastrous employment stats for toilet law schools. An American military officer once told a Vietnamese officer after the war, you never defeated us in battle. The Vietnamese officer replied, that is irrelevant.

    3. I do hope my forecast is too bleak, but in light of the actions of the California Supreme Court last week, where they entirely caved to the scam deans, I don't see much grounds for hope. It will now be a nationwide race to the bottom, with no state wanting to have the "hardest" bar exam. After all, who wants to listen to the scam deans/profs moan? If the scam were to falter, they'd actually have to-YIKES!-practice law.


    ATL featured a Joe Patrice entry, on May 30, 2017, under the header "Another Elite Law School Eyes Accepting The GRE." Look at this opening paragraph:

    "Perhaps there’s still something of an “as goes Harvard, so goes the nation’s law schools” complex out there. After Harvard shocked the legal academy and announced that it would accept GRE scores as an alternative to the LSAT for future law school applications, it was only a matter of time before other elite schools jumped on the bandwagon. At the time, Jeff Thomas of Kaplan Test Prep suggested a “domino effect” after Harvard’s announcement, which was a much more polite phrasing than when I said that Harvard “broke the seal.”

    Lower-tiered schools received a gift, when Harvard Law $chool decided to accept this test as an alternate to the LSAT. After all, how can you complain about a fourth tier diploma mill using these scores, when Harvard does the same thing? Scroll down to this passage:

    "While the ABA hasn’t officially opened the door to the GRE yet, Northwestern compiled data from its own student body, demonstrating that the GRE reliably predicted law school success — the key to the ABA’s testing standards — based on Northwestern students who had taken both tests. And the organization that administers the GRE is working on a nationwide test to show the same thing.

    This is bad news for LSAC, which earlier announced a number of reforms to LSAT administration in a move that they honestly swear has nothing to do with Harvard poking them in the eye. With law schools complaining about the LSAT’s inconvenient schedule — as opposed to the GRE’s near constant run of administrations via computer — driving down the numbers of quality students considering law school, LSAC says it will offer more opportunities to take the test and lift the cap on the number of tests a student can take in a two-year span.

    But making up the gap they have with the GRE doesn’t necessarily get the LSAT out of the woods. And it’s not just that some deans have raised additional concerns — such as attracting math and science students who have to take the GRE anyway and might consider law school if they can apply with the same test — if law schools decide, based on these studies, that there’s no deficit in accepting the GRE, then there’s simply no reason not to accept both tests."

    ABA in$titution$ are happy to take applications from anyone with a pulse, including those who might consider law school after first failing to get into their desired degree program. This is embarrassing. One should not enroll in a "professional" school, if that was a mere backup. Then again, the bags of federal student loan money are sent out just the same. When will these cesspools start accepting ACT scores?

    1. The students whom I trained for the LSAT would recognize the logical flaws in this:

      —— While the ABA hasn’t officially opened the door to the GRE yet, Northwestern compiled data from its own student body, demonstrating that the GRE reliably predicted law school success — the key to the ABA’s testing standards — based on Northwestern students who had taken both tests.

      The proposal is to use the GRE for the purpose of admission—to determine who should be admitted and who should not. Validating it for that purpose requires a comparison of those who are admitted and those who are rejected. That cannot be achieved solely by looking at people who have been admitted.

      In addition, the group of current students who have taken the GRE is not representative of the group of applicants that would offer a GRE score.

      The ability of Northwestern to get away with such garbage says something unflattering about lawyers' capacity for logical reasoning.

  14. The LSAT was always a joke, and an unneeded obstacle to admissions to law.
    Why the debate now that it will be even further minimized?

    - ABA already allows 10% of incoming 1L's not to have it.

    - Part time programs are not required
    to report LSAT's and therefore Top Tier schools like Seton Hall Law can funnel low lsat takers in this way.

    - Then you have the AAMPLE's, LEAP, and several alternative admission programs specifically designed to bypass the LSAT (low score blocking point). Over 70 Law school run these to date.

    Abolish the LSAT, come on after three years of taking law exams, and passing the bar, don't you look back and ask... why did I have to be bothered with this?

    Not the best indicator as determined by over 70 law schools with ALTERNATIVE admission standards..... no debate here.

    PS: If you can get through 3 years of law school and pass the bar, you deserve a chance to run with the big dogs... do not let anyone else tell you different!

    1. None of your banter means shit if a law grad doesn't pack the mental gear to pass a fucking bar exam. That's the purpose of requiring law school applicants to take the goddamned LSAT in the first place.

    2. The majority will solo 3-5 years in sh!tlaw before leaving law to sell insurance, real estate, or reenter their previous non-law field.

      Just stating facts.

      Law is a crappy and inefficient way to make money. There are many better ways to go.

    3. AAMPLE-Seton Hall Troll,

      You are a terrible troll. If you are going to continue to troll us with Seton Hall references, then the least you can do is make reference to Seton Hall law “professor” Simkovic’s million dollar “study.” And enough with your inane clichés. Add some Tom Vu quotes or something to change up your weekly drivel.

  15. @9:30

    We all know that Bar/Bri is the key to passing the bar (Also some other really ,really sweet study material, but no need to let the cat out of the bag).

    Pre-recorded lectures but yes, if you
    do happen to struggle after the first attempt. Simple solution: Double Down on the BAR/Bri prep!!!!!

    A lot of people get this wrong. The point of getting higher education for a lot of people was to make money and qualify for skilled jobs.

    Being as solo is no different than running a business providing legal services. You should have taken a class
    on business entities and corporations.

    You can still make money, but you have to think like a business owner (except for non-profits), the only reasons Business's exist is to generate revenue aiming for a profit.

    so if you cant hang a shingle and figure out how to do this... well than
    ok you are screwed, but just know by having a JD, you have been given the knowledge/tools to make it.

    1. The "business entities and corporations" classes offered in law school don't teach you how to run a small business day-to-day. That's like signing up for Property I and expecting to learn about home maintenance and landscaping.

    2. You are shamelessly shilling for The Law School Scam. Everyone knows lol school does not prepare you to practice law.

      It confers the right to sit for the bar.

      That is all.


    Back on March 11, 2017, NBC News posted a story from Safia Samee Ali, under the headline "Harvard Law School Accepting the GRE Could Lead to Sweeping Changes." Here is the opening:

    "Harvard Law School's verdict this week to open its admissions process could set off a national trend.

    After announcing Wednesday that they will accept the Graduate Record Examinations (GRE) as well as the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT), the Ivy league school could be setting a different kind of legal precedent — one that could ostensibly change the face of law school admissions.

    While the illustrious institution was not the first to experiment with this program — the University of Arizona started accepting the GRE last year — the school’s firepower could start a national trend.

    "When Harvard sneezes, everyone gets a cold,” said Christopher Loss, an associate professor of public policy and higher education at Vanderbilt University."

    Hopefully, Harvard Law School does not start accepting completed coloring books and statements from applicants who "passionately" want to study law. Otherwise, the lower-tiered dumps will be enrolling even bigger cretins than they already admit.


Web Analytics