For decades, the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) has been the gatekeeper for aspiring lawyers in the United States. Introduced in 1948, the LSAT became a near-universal requirement for law school admissions, serving as a standardized measure of critical thinking skills. But recent years have seen a growing debate over whether this test should remain the gold standard—or whether it’s time to open new pathways to legal education.
A Testy Situation
The push for alternatives began picking up steam in the 2010s, driven by concerns about persistent racial score gaps and the financial burden of test preparation. Critics argued that the LSAT was not only expensive but also contributed to inequities in admissions. For example, Black test takers averaged scores significantly lower than their white and Asian peers (142 vs. 153 out of 180, according to a 2019 study). Supporters of change believed that removing or supplementing the test requirement would foster diversity and allow law schools more flexibility.
In response to these concerns, some law schools began experimenting with admitting small numbers of students without LSAT scores. The American Bar Association (ABA) standards at the time allowed up to 10% of a law school’s admitted class to bypass standardized testing, though most schools stuck with traditional requirements.
GRE and JD-Next
A pivotal moment came in November 2021 when the ABA authorized law schools to accept the Graduate Record Exam (GRE) as a “valid and reliable” (to borrow the ABA’s language of requirements) alternative to the LSAT. Meanwhile, another alternative was quietly taking shape: JD-Next.
Developed by the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, JD-Next offers an eight-week online course focused on contract law, followed by an exam testing students’ ability to apply what they’ve learned. JD-Next’s public rollout began in 2023, just as the U.S. Supreme Court struck down affirmative action in university admissions—a decision that incentivized law schools to seek new ways to maintain diversity without explicit racial preferences.
Proponents claimed that JD-Next provided a level playing field across racial and socioeconomic backgrounds and reduced score disparities compared to the LSAT. Law school officials cited peer-reviewed studies supporting JD-Next’s predictive validity and its smaller racial score gaps compared to LSAT. Still, LSAC disputed these claims, arguing there is no evidence that JD-Next reliably predicts law school success like decades-old LSAT data does.
ABA Debates
In 2022, the ABA’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admission to the Bar proposed removing the standardized test requirement altogether from its accreditation standards. They argued that mandatory testing constrained innovation and noted that no other accreditor required such tests for professional degrees. Other professional programs, such as medical schools, often use standardized entrance exams like the MCAT, but their accrediting organizations don’t require them to do so. The ABA’s prior move to allow alternatives to the LSAT suggested that law schools should catch up to other fields in having similar flexibility.
However, this proposal met resistance from many law deans and from the Law School Admission Council (LSAC), which develops the LSAT. Critics warned that eliminating standardized tests could make admissions more dependent on subjective factors like undergraduate institution prestige, potentially disadvantaging minority applicants (which would be counterproductive to the ABA’s goals of being more equitable. Critics also pointed out a lack of data on how such changes would affect student outcomes.
After heated debate, the ABA’s House of Delegates rejected outright removal of the test requirement in early 2023. In response, the Council formed a working group tasked with finding a compromise. They landed on a system that would allow individual law schools to experiment under controlled conditions while gathering data on impacts.
Variance Ventures
In November 2024, the ABA voted to create a new “variance process” – a special procedure that allows individual law schools to apply for permission to waive (or bypass) the usual requirement of standardized tests. If a school is granted a variance, it can admit some or all of its incoming students without requiring these test scores for a set period (usually three to five years). This process lets schools experiment with new admissions methods while the ABA monitors results and collects data.
Under this system, law schools can apply for permission to admit up to 100% of their incoming class without requiring any “valid and reliable” admissions test (including both LSAT and alternatives like GRE or JD-Next) for three to five years. Schools granted variances must share data with the ABA, which partnered with AccessLex Institute to analyze that data. Researchers used the data to examine whether applicant pools grow more diverse, how demographics shift, and how students admitted without test scores performed on bar exams.
By August 2025, over a dozen law schools had applied for this variance, a significant increase from previous years when only small pilot programs existed.
Adoption Rates Remain Mixed
Despite these changes, most applicants still take the LSAT. According to ABA data released in December 2024, out of those admitted with an exam score 38,728 were accepted using LSAT scores, 701 were admitted with GRE scores, and only 23 used JD-Next.
JD-Next saw wider adoption among law schools after Aspen Publishing fully acquired it in November 2024. As of December, 59 out of 196 accredited law schools had sought ABA authorization to accept JD-Next as an alternative admission test — up from just 33 in October 2023.
Some prominent institutions—including Georgetown Law, George Washington University Law Center, Emory University School of Law, Boston College Law School, and Vanderbilt—have received permission to accept JD-Next scores in lieu of LSAT for upcoming admissions cycles (starting fall 2025). However, some schools have delayed implementation or are using JD-Next scores only as supplements rather than replacements.
Looking Ahead
Even as formal requirements relax or diversify, cultural expectations remain strong. Most aspiring lawyers still prepare for the LSAT and submit scores because it remains widely accepted and trusted by admissions committees. The application process may not change overnight: similar trends are observed in medical school admissions, where MCAT scores are submitted even if not strictly required.
For now, while alternatives are gaining ground slowly but surely, the LSAT doesn’t look like it will disappear completely anytime soon.
Related Resources:
- Law School Applicants Play Waiting Game in Highly Competitive Class (FindLaw's Practice of Law)
- Online LSAT Testing To Shut Down in China Over Cheating Concerns (FindLaw's Practice of Law)
- Preparing for the LSAT (FindLaw's Resources for Law Students)
