u/Palmer_Test_Prep

As of right now, the DOJ is just reviewing public facing stuff on the website, but in its letter, looks like it is asking for admissions data. Also, this isn't just the law school at W+M. The letter is coming after the other schools at W+M as well.

Full text here: https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1458091/dl

Add this to the notable list of schools currently under attack:

-Harvard being sued by the DOJ for admissions data and fighting to keep it confidential.

-Duke Law being investigated by DOJ and accused of discrimination.

-Yale Medical, UCLA Medical, and 15 other medical schools investigated by DOJ and accused of discrimination.

            2025        2026

LSAT 25th   163         166

LSAT 50th   166         167

LSAT 75th   168         169

GPA 25th    3.60        3.59

GPA 50th    3.79        3.79

GPA 75th    3.90        3.90

Notably their 25th LSAT in 2026 is their 2025 median LSAT in 2025.

https://law.wfu.edu/admissions/jd/

"To ensure an appropriate transition to this new approach, any prospective applicant for admission in 2027 or later who, prior to this change, submitted transcripts that included college courses taken during high school, may request that their LSAC GPA be calculated in accordance with this new policy. They can do so by contacting our Candidate Services team either by phone at (800) 336-3982, by chat, or by submitting a written request at LSACinfo@LSAC.org, with “GPA Recalculation” in the subject line."

This is good news for those who would have benefited from the rule change but who submitted transcripts prior to July 28.

This still isn't good news for those who would have benefited from the old rule but who submitted transcripts on or after July 28. The rule change still screws you. As of right now, you don't get the option to ask for the old rules in the same way that the others above get to request the new rules. How is that fair?

And this still doesn't create a level playing field among applicants. There are going to be plenty of people applying this cycle and later who submitted transcripts prior to July 28, and who benefited from the old rule. They are going to be competing on a UGPA basis with people who might have had very similar transcripts but who got screwed by the new rule. How is that fair?

"To ensure an appropriate transition to this new approach, any prospective applicant for admission in 2027 or later who, prior to this change, submitted transcripts that included college courses taken during high school, may request that their LSAC GPA be calculated in accordance with this new policy. They can do so by contacting our Candidate Services team either by phone at (800) 336-3982, by chat, or by submitting a written request at LSACinfo@LSAC.org, with “GPA Recalculation” in the subject line."

This is good news for those who would have benefited from the rule change but who submitted transcripts prior to July 28.

This still isn't good news for those who would have benefited from the old rule but who submitted transcripts on or after July 28. The rule change still screws you. As of right now, you don't get the option to ask for the old rules in the same way that the others above get to request the new rules. How is that fair?

And this still doesn't create a level playing field among applicants. There are going to be plenty of people applying this cycle and later who submitted transcripts prior to July 28, and who benefited from the old rule. They are going to be competing on a UGPA basis with people who might have had very similar transcripts but who got screwed by the new rule. How is that fair?

Working on a list of questions / issues for open letter to LSAC regarding yesterday's policy change. I have some listed below, but would appreciate suggestions for more and/or comments on the one's I have.

If you missed yesterday's news, here it is again:

If you took college classes for credit while you were in high school, LSAC no longer includes those classes in GPA calculation.

"Grades Excluded from Conversion: College-level courses taken while in high school. Credits for the work in these courses are totaled and reported separately as unconverted credits."

Per Kyle McEntee, Senior Director of Prelaw Engagement at LSAC, this change goes into effect only for transcripts submitted to LSAC on July 28, 2026 or later. Apparently, this change is an effort to "ensure fairness and equity in the law school application process."

Here are questions that I have:

1. Plenty of applicants get transcripts up to LSAC and evaluated sometimes years in advance of actually applying. So, we know there are going to be a ton of people applying at least for the next few years who had transcripts evaluated under the old rule. They are going to be competing against applicants who had transcripts evaluated under the new rule. How is it in any way fair or equitable to have applicants competing for admission on a UGPA basis when their UGPAs were calculated dramatically differently?
2. Many people paid for CAS, a contractual relationship of some sort with LSAC, prior to July 28, but did not submit transcripts prior to July 28. For the sake of fairness and equity, shouldn't they have the right to have their transcripts evaluated under the rule in effect at the time they contracted with LSAC for CAS services?
3. Many who have been on a very long and dedicated path to law school were counting on having their full college GPA to apply with. Imagine someone with 60 credits of A+ grades from college classes in high school, but with a 3.5 average in 60 credits after high school. Before the rule change, they had a 3.915 UGPA and were ready to apply to Harvard. After the rule change, they have a 3.5 GPA and are now struggling to meet medians anywhere in the top 150. How would that be fair or equitable?
4. For those who had transcripts evaluated prior to July 28, but who would have benefited from the new rule, will LSAC immediately re-evaluate those transcripts under the new rule for the sake of fairness and equity?
5. UGPA is an important metric in the admission decision not just because of ABA 509 median, but because it is the second best single predictor of law school performance. To the best of my knowledge, those studies that found correlation between UGPA and law school performance were done using 4 years worth of college credits. Under this new rule, some people who dual enrolled in community colleges while in high school and earned an associates degree while in high school might have a full 2 out of 4 years of college credits excluded from UGPA calculation. Does the UGPA correlation still hold when UGPA is basically just junior and senior year of college?

Working on a list of questions / issues for open letter to LSAC regarding yesterday's policy change. I have some listed below, but would appreciate suggestions for more and/or comments on the one's I have.

If you missed yesterday's news, here it is again:

If you took college classes for credit while you were in high school, LSAC no longer includes those classes in GPA calculation.

"Grades Excluded from Conversion: College-level courses taken while in high school. Credits for the work in these courses are totaled and reported separately as unconverted credits."

Per Kyle McEntee, Senior Director of Prelaw Engagement at LSAC, this change goes into effect only for transcripts submitted to LSAC on July 28, 2026 or later. Apparently, this change is an effort to "ensure fairness and equity in the law school application process."

Here are questions that I have:

1. Plenty of applicants get transcripts up to LSAC and evaluated sometimes years in advance of actually applying. So, we know there are going to be a ton of people applying at least for the next few years who had transcripts evaluated under the old rule. They are going to be competing against applicants who had transcripts evaluated under the new rule. How is it in any way fair or equitable to have applicants competing for admission on a UGPA basis when their UGPAs were calculated dramatically differently?

2. Many people paid for CAS, a contractual relationship of some sort with LSAC, prior to July 28, but did not submit transcripts prior to July 28. For the sake of fairness and equity, shouldn't they have the right to have their transcripts evaluated under the rule in effect at the time they contracted with LSAC for CAS services?

3. Many who have been on a very long and dedicated path to law school were counting on having their full college GPA to apply with. Imagine someone with 60 credits of A+ grades from college classes in high school, but with a 3.5 average in 60 credits after high school. Before the rule change, they had a 3.915 UGPA and were ready to apply to Harvard. After the rule change, they have a 3.5 GPA and are now struggling to meet medians anywhere in the top 150. How would that be fair or equitable?

4. For those who had transcripts evaluated prior to July 28, but who would have benefited from the new rule, will LSAC immediately re-evaluate those transcripts under the new rule for the sake of fairness and equity?

5. UGPA is an important metric in the admission decision not just because of ABA 509 median, but because it is the second best single predictor of law school performance. To the best of my knowledge, those studies that found correlation between UGPA and law school performance were done using 4 years worth of college credits. Under this new rule, some people who dual enrolled in community colleges while in high school and earned an associates degree while in high school might have a full 2 out of 4 years of college credits excluded from UGPA calculation. Does the UGPA correlation still hold when UGPA is basically just junior and senior year of college?

News for all of you that took college classes for credit while you were in high school.

Effective today, LSAC no longer includes those classes in GPA calculation.

"Grades Excluded from Conversion: College-level courses taken while in high school. Credits for the work in these courses are totaled and reported separately as unconverted credits."

https://www.lsac.org/applying-law-school/jd-application-process/cas/requesting/transcript-summarization

News for all of you that took college classes for credit while you were in high school.

Effective today, LSAC no longer includes those classes in GPA calculation.

"Grades Excluded from Conversion: College-level courses taken while in high school. Credits for the work in these courses are totaled and reported separately as unconverted credits."

https://www.lsac.org/applying-law-school/jd-application-process/cas/requesting/transcript-summarization

Let's have some fun. One stimulus, six easy LSAT style questions. World Cup theme.

Also, who is everyone rooting for?

Lionel Messi scored a hat trick in yesterday's game against Algeria. Although Algeria is not considered a true competitor to Argentina, the accomplishment was still impressive. After all, he is 38 years old, making him the oldest player in World Cup history to score a hat trick. Thus, Messi is the GOAT.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Which of the following is the role of the statement "Algeria is not considered a true competitor"?

A) It is evidence in support of the argument's only conclusion.

B) It is evidence in support of the argument's subsidiary conclusion.

C) It is a conceded point.

D) It is the main conclusion

E) It is a subsidiary conclusion in support of the main conclusion.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Which of the following assumptions is necessary for the conclusion to logically follow?

A) If you are not the oldest person to accomplish a feat, then you are not Messi.

B) A hat trick against Algeria was not impressive.

C) Cristiano Ronaldo is in fact not the GOAT.

D) If you are the oldest to accomplish a feat, that is impressive.

E) If you are not the GOAT, then you are not the oldest person to accomplish a feat.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Which of the following is the method of argument?

A) Appeal to popularity.

B) One theory was considered but then discarded in favor of another theory.

C) Counterevidence was accepted and considered, but other evidence was favored.

D) Reductio ad absurdum

E) Counterevidence was discarded because it was logically inconsistent with evidence supporting the main conclusion.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Which of the following is the sufficient assumption?

A) If you are the GOAT, you are the oldest to accomplish a feat.

B) If you are not the GOAT, then you are able to impress.

C) If you are not the GOAT, then you are not the oldest to accomplish a feat.

D) If you are the oldest to accomplish a feat, then it was against Algeria

E) If Lionel Messi is the GOAT, then Cristiano Ronaldo is not the GOAT.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Which of the following would strengthen the argument?

A) Algeria is known for being a world ranked team.

B) Lionel Messi was wearing a new type of Addidas shoe.

C) Cristiano Ronaldo is considered Lionel Messi's top competitor, and Ronaldo is not the GOAT.

D) Tickets for the World Cup are stupidly expensive.

E) The game was played outdoors, but the weather was not adverse.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Which one of the following would weaken the argument?

A) Lionel Messi placed a large illegal bet on the game that Argentina would win.

B) The Arrowhead fans performed the "tomahawk chop".

C) The goalie for Algeria placed a large illegal bet on the game that Argentina would win.

D) Lionel Messi was jet lagged.

E) Arrowhead stadium charges only $10 for a beer, and Lionel Messi took advantage of that deal in the pre-game warm ups.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Cheers!

EDITED to correct age from 37 to 38.

Let me start with my understanding that admissions departments typically view canceled scores as neutral and reserve the right to consider all scores when multiple scores are present, even if the highest score is the most important to them. I have that understanding based on reasoning about the predictive value of multiple scores outweighing the predictive value of a single score, about the intended function of having a score cancel feature, and based on official statements made by law schools.

Nonetheless, I am looking for info that challenges that understanding.

Looking for current admissions policy that either:

-states categorically that canceled scores are viewed as negatives in the admission decision.

-states categorically that lower scores will never be considered in any way when multiple scores are present.

I am only looking for such information if is either:

-posted on a law school's official website.

-verifiable as official policy at a school, such as a quote from an admissions dean in an interview posted to an outside blog.

If you think it is useful to comment XYZ expert's opinion and reasoning on the matter, sure, why not, but that's not what I'm looking for.

Yes, if I had time, I could comb through all of the 200 or so law school's websites to find this info, if it even exists, but even then it wouldn't find those dean statements that might be posted somewhere else. I'm just hoping that maybe some of you already know exactly where at least some of those policies and statements are posted, if they even exist, and can provide direct links.

And what is prompting this query? Let's just say that I have seen supposed experts make claims that canceled scores were negative and/or make claims that only the highest score counts for any reason and/or make claims that in some cases keeping a score lower than a previous score on file was better than canceling that score. But said experts could not provide a source other than repeating other supposed experts. So, I'm looking for official sources.

TIA

Let me start with my understanding that admissions departments typically view canceled scores as neutral and reserve the right to consider all scores when multiple scores are present, even if the highest score is the most important to them. I have that understanding based on reasoning about the predictive value of multiple scores outweighing the predictive value of a single score, about the intended function of having a score cancel feature, and based on official statements made by law schools.

Nonetheless, I am looking for info that challenges that understanding.

Looking for current admissions policy that either:

-states categorically that canceled scores are viewed as negatives in the admission decision.

-states categorically that lower scores will never be considered in any way when multiple scores are present.

I am only looking for such information if is either:

-posted on a law school's official website.

-verifiable as official policy at a school, such as a quote from an admissions dean in an interview posted to an outside blog.

If you think it is useful to comment XYZ expert's opinion and reasoning on the matter, sure, why not, but that's not what I'm looking for.

Yes, if I had time, I could comb through all of the 200 or so law school's websites to find this info, if it even exists, but even then it wouldn't find those dean statements that might be posted somewhere else. I'm just hoping that maybe some of you already know exactly where at least some of those policies and statements are posted, if they even exist, and can provide direct links.

And what is prompting this query? Let's just say that I have seen supposed experts make claims that canceled scores were negative and/or make claims that only the highest score counts for any reason and/or make claims that in some cases keeping a score lower than a previous score on file was better than canceling that score. But said experts could not provide a source other than repeating other supposed experts. So, I'm looking for official sources.

TIA