|
Kid is interested in law school. We see that top schools (Harvard, Yale, Colombia) accept either the LSAT or the GRE.
Is there an advantage to taking the LSAT? My understanding is that the GRE is more like the SAT (but harder). If the schools like them equally, I'd say you might as well stick with the devil you know. But is failing to take the LSAT a signal of some sort? |
Schools do not like them equally. LSAT is accepted everywhere, GRE only at some schools. Conventional wisdom is GRE works if you have a super high GPA and something else special. Otherwise, take the LSAT. |
| LSAT > GRE. Law school admissions offices are more familiar with it. And the admissions dean at Michigan had an IG post about this recently and said the LSAT is better because it's tailored for the skills/aptitude law schools look for. |
|
Take the LSAT.
Incidentally, some people may find they naturally do better on the LSAT than they did on the SAT. |
| You can try taking both |
| If your kid is a good test taker, LSAT is much better. Law schools are looking for high LSATs for rankings. The GRE is irrelevant. |
| GRE is mathier. LSAT. |
| Why do you need to take a math section for nonmath post bac school? |
What if the kid is really good at math? |
Logic |
Then try both. The law schools provide all of the rankings accepted at the 75th percentile, median and 25th percentile. Ny the way you should pay for a coach and devote significant time to the process |
| ^^+1. A good coach will test for both to determine aptitude |
| LSAT is preferred by far. The GRE is for those who are URM or non-traditional. I rarely see a law applicant have great results from it as the LSAT is designed to test aptitude for law school and is a better predictor of grades. Google how many students a year enroll with a GRE for certain law schools, you can find it in their 509 report. |
If the kid is really good at math, they'll get top score on either. |
LSAT has a logical reasoning section. |