LSAT Alternatives Gain Slowly in Law Admissions, ABA Data Show

Applicants to US law schools are using alternative exams, but the vast majority of those accepted are taking the longstanding Law School Admissions Test, data recently released by the American Bar Association shows.

Of students who took an exam, 38,728 students were accepted to US law programs with the LSAT, according to data provided by law schools to the ABA and released for the first time Monday. Another 701 applicants were admitted with the Graduate Record Exam, and 23 were admitted using the new JD-Next prep course and entrance exam as an alternative admissions test.

The ABA disclosed this data Monday in its Standard 509 Information report.

This is the first full year that JD-Next admissions tests were administered to the general public after being introduced in 2023. Aspen fully acquired the JD-Next from the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law in November, for an undisclosed sum.

New Kid on the Block

The JD-Next uses a different method than the LSAT, which was introduced in 1948. Students take an eight-week online course with contract law content. Then they’re tested on their ability to apply what they’ve learned, in what proponents claim is a level playing field for test takers across racial and socioeconomic backgrounds.

The LSAT measures critical thinking skills broadly. Its critics contend it is biased in favor of those from more privileged backgrounds, partly because of persistent score disparities.

The Council of the ABA Section on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar generally authorized law schools to accept the GRE, administered by the Educational Testing Service, as a “valid and reliable” LSAT admissions test alternative in November 2021.

Though the JD-Next was in development for years prior to the US Supreme Court’s 2023 decision striking down affirmative action in university admissions, the decision may have provided incentives for law schools to experiment with tools besides the LSAT, said Aspen Publishing Vice President and Publisher Joseph Terry and some law school officials.

“It is all about opening up new pathways for underrepresented groups and expanding the pool of students who can attend and succeed at law schools and become good practitioners,” Terry said.

Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Prof. Daniel B. Rodriguez said, “My own view is that, certainly as the Supreme Court has ruled, as it limited the ability and the prerogative of schools to use racial preferences in the way they had, then schools will likely be looking for other ways of achieving important dual missions, one mission being to admit and enroll the most highly qualified classes that they can as measured by many criteria including test scores.”

ABA standards require law schools to use a “valid and reliable” admissions test to be accredited, except in limited circumstances, where law schools seek a variance, or exception, to the rules. Aspen Publishing contends that its JD-Next program meets the standard, with smaller racial and ethnic score disparities than the LSAT.

“We looked for a test that would eliminate race disparities,” while still producing a reliable predictor of law school success, as required by the ABA’s standards for law school accreditation, said Dean Marc L. Miller of Arizona Law, who initiated development of JD-Next. “We found a way to assess someone’s potential, not merely describe their past,” he said.

Miller also pushed for using the Graduate Record Exam in admissions to widen the range of applicants.

Fifty-nineout of 196 accredited law schools had applied for a variance from the ABA Council to accept the JD-Next in lieu of the LSAT as of early December, according to ABA data. That’s up from 33 in October 2023.

Creators of the JD-Next and Aspen cited several peer-reviewed academic studies they say support the validity and reliability of their test as predictive of law school success without significant test score gaps among racial and ethnic groups.

However, the head of nonprofit Law School Admission Council, which administers the LSAT, disputes that the JD-Next is a reliable predictor of success like the LSAT.

“Based on the data we have seen, there is no evidence that JD-Next can similarly serve as a reliable admission assessment,” said Susan L. Krinsky, the council’s interim president and CEO.

“Law schools trust the LSAT because they know it is highly predictive of law school success, based on decades of evidence,” Krinsky said. She also criticized some of the studies supporting the validity and reliability of the JD-Next.

LSAC also initially opposed the University of Arizona’s pioneering use of the GRE.

Vanderbilt Law School Assistant Dean and Dean of Admissions G. Todd Morton said the school obtained ABA authorization in the summer of 2023 to accept JD-Next scores.

“It potentially does a better job of identifying more people who can learn well in law school, and we might be able to identify more qualified and capable students from these tests in comparison with the LSAT,” said Morton.

But Vanderbilt Law didn’t accept the scores in lieu of the LSAT until this application cycle for the class entering in the fall of 2025, he said. Vanderbilt doesn’t accept GRE scores for admission to its J.D. program, he said.

Other law schools that have received permission from the ABA to allow applicants to submit JD-Next scores in place of the LSAT include Georgetown Law, George Washington University Law Center, Emory University School of Law, and Boston College Law School.

About 5,000 JD-Next test takers have requested to have their scores reported to law schools in 2024, the company said. Law schools don’t need a variance to use JD-Next scores as a supplement to other scores.

Some schools said they don’t expect to see the first class with JD-Next applicants until 2025-26. And others that received the variance, such as Georgetown Law, are not yet accepting those scores in place of LSAT and GRE scores for law school admission, a spokeswoman said.