The point here, though, is that a real scam is dynamic. When exposed, an amateur scammer simply folds up shop, disappears, gives up the game. The second the shit hits, they already have a foot out the door. But the professional scammer adapts. He adjusts to his new environs, reacts with subtle modifications and keeps on scamming, pretending that he was never a swindler at all. A real charlatan, after all, would have folded up and left immediately once that first piece of feces contacted the fan blade. Instead, a professional scammer sees shit on their arm as a fertilizer for new possibilities.
Consider Arizona Law's recent adoption of the GRE as a potential admissions test.
University of Arizona College of Law’s recent decision to ease up on the LSAT and let prospective students apply with a GRE score, discussed in today’s Wall Street Journal, has caused some consternation in the tightly regimented world of law school admissions.I do trust that the study was as scientifically rigorous as, say, the million dollar law degree and the Indiana Tech Feasibility Study. Obviously, it goes without saying that the study would be peer-reviewed, right? According to the article, the ABA is preparing an investigation that will presumably involve reading the study and then moving on to more important issues.
But to those who wonder, can they do that? Arizona Law Dean Marc Miller has a simple answer: Yes, and other schools can too.
Mr. Miller said the school’s proof that the GRE is just as good a predictor of first-year law school grades as the LSAT is a study Arizona Law put together in conjunction with Educational Testing Service, the maker of the GRE. With that study in hand, he said, the school believes it can start taking GRE scores without waiting for a formal blessing from the ABA. Incoming students can still apply using an LSAT score.
For those who are curious about how the study was done, here's the ABA Journal article:
The decision relies on a study finding that performance on the GRE reliably predicted 1L grades for University of Arizona law students. Nearly 100 current and recent graduates of the law school took the GRE in November; the results were compared with their first-year grades.Given that the band of people who were admitted to Arizona and chose to attend Arizona is far from representative of the applicant population and that a hundred people leaves a large margin of error, it should be fair easy business for the ABA to conclude that it's a perfectly acceptable alternative.
For a few years now, entering LSATs have been slipping. Law schools at the middle and bottom of the pack have been scrounging for students with LSAT scores that can protect their medians and 25th/75th percentile. Arizona is no different in that it's either fighting or falling.
But there's an easier way. Instead of being beholden to the too-small LSAT pool, find some other professional test and use it instead! And don't worry, Arizona isn't the only experimenter out there. From the ABA Journal article:
The Wake Forest University School of Law and the University of Hawaii School of Law are both studying how well the GRE measures law school success.Note that there was never any concern with accepting an alternative test prior to the downturn. For decades, law school functioned off the LSAT; good, bad, or ugly, it's been fairly reliable. Suddenly, facing a crisis not only of quantity but quality of students, the law schools innovate. They find a way to sidestep the benchmark and enter a new world of thought where no one has any idea what GRE scores mean in law school, and won't for some time.
It's astounding how quickly the law schools can act when it is their own best interests to do so. With respect to tuition and the job market, we've heard lots of hemming and hawing and remarks about institutional inertia and trying to solve the issues and other reasons reform can't exactly happen overnight - or in a five year period. There have been formal committees whose grand conclusion is to anoint another committee. And yet, like *that* the law schools are trying to scrap entry credentials that have withstood reasonable criticism for decades.
Not that the LSAT is a great test or anything, but if this was done for any non-cynical reason, it should have been done 20 years ago. Instead, there are suggestions made like this:
Jeff Thomas, executive director of prelaw programs at Kaplan Test Prep, suggested another benefit in a Wall Street Journal interview. “The GRE is regarded as the easier test,” he said.It'd be damn impressive were it not so impeaching.