University of Arizona Law School’s Use of GRE Scores Creates LSAT Trouble

, The National Law Journal


The University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law’s recent decision to accept GRE scores in lieu of Law School Admission Test scores from applicants could cost the school its membership in the Law School Admission Council.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • Reggy

    So the GRE tests 7 subjects:Biochemistry, Cell and Molecular BiologyBiologyChemistryLiterature in EnglishMathematicsPhysicsPsychologySo what is not stated in the article , are any of these GRE subject scores acceptable or only certain subject GRE test score (s) ? And if so what is the correlation to performance in law school, even assuming the LSAT is a flawed measurement?

  • Honest Iago

    Let‘s face it: across the country, the law schools are dealing with the declining number of applications by lowering their standards. Bar exam pass rates are at a three-decade low in New York because the law schools have been scraping the bottom of the barrel for applicants for years.

  • Richie

    Sounds to me like Dean Miller‘s trying to have it both ways. Wants the advantages that come with membership (which is completely voluntary, I understand) in the LSAC, but doesn‘t want to comply with the rules that he presumably knew about when he made the decision to go LSAT optional. If he didn‘t know the rules when he made the decision, well, what‘s that they say about ignorance of the law? . . .

  • Dottie Hamilton

    I took the LSAT 41 years ago. It clearly was not designed to allow economically disadvantaged students who had lousy high school math classes to succeed on the test. My kid took the LSAT last year and I started playing with the logic problems and could not answer any of them right. (Yet I had graduated from a top 15 law school cum laude and passed the bar exam on my first try.) As a result, I concluded that the LSAT is still a vile, class-based test geared to keep bright people educated at terrible high schools and mediocre colleges out of law school. As a result, I applaud University of Arizona for flipping LSAC the bird.

  • John A. Silvi

    First and foremost, the ABA has permitted Variances by each law school to utilize the scores of other testing platforms, however they must apply for the variance and be granted these permissions. the last law School who utilized test for admissions into their law programs was Rutgers (South campus) which was fined 25K for failure in applying for this variance. Their northern campus had already applied and was granted permission in utilizing the various tests offered by ETS. Here is where the real problem lies. The ABA has become a fragmented organization in that they have failed to implement the Matrix of the Old Diversity Standard which now resolves the 2003 Grutter Ruling and with John Roberts questioning the time frame on Grutter during the Oral arguments in Fisher II, the ABA is attempting to remove itself from its failures over the past 35 years by which they were to referee or mediate the selection process between the law schools and the law applicants which was to protect the tax payers in support of a fraudulent business program that was created in 1979/1980 thru the divorce by ETS and the creation of the Law School Admissions Services (LSAS) organization by which Karen mentions within the Article (Joan Van Tol). In-short, the services and counsel (LSAS/LSAC) took sides with the law schools (both Approved and Non-Approved) remember that Non-Approved schools too utilized the financial services of our tax payers (Although it is cleverly camouflaged) and when O‘Connor set a 25 year sunset on AA, the US Attorney General set out to seek knowledge but in resolving the current bias that has always been attached by the aba AND ITS LAW SCHOOLS. Now that the resolution of the standard has been resolved and with members of Congress and our own Texas Governor in having this solution, the ABA has effectively boxed themselves into a corner which has exposed corruption within the current bias process. Cases of Scandals into law schools based on contacts and dollar donations to the over graduation of legal applicants into the legal profession thru the violation of the allocated seats established by the ABA and failed in respects to enforcement coupled with LSAT Test failures and writings that have inhibited the disabled and handicap from proper admissions considerations, the ABA, Council and yes, my old employment company LSAS are caught within their own web of greed and stupidity which is now being played out within the various courts of Law. The case no

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202756501823

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.