In an unfolding saga, the GMAC, which administers the GMAT, has fully shut down a cheating ring.  As a result, 84 of the violators have had their scores wiped out.

The GMAT is a computer adaptive test.  It works off a single library of questions that can appear based upon the number of questions one gets correct.  Apparently, an “enterprising” group of individuals decided to start a website that stored these questions (they relied upon their memory to recreate the questions) and of course charge a fee for access.  It took the GMAC folks a while to break the ring because they first had to win a copyright suit to learn the names of the individuals.

Again, a story like this leaves me wondering, (a) is it not simpler just to study for the test and take it legally, (b) what could kids like this accomplish if they channeled their energy into lawful endeavors, and (c) why do people do these things knowing that ultimately they will get caught?

In a monumental development in the world of legal education, Northwestern University Law School will offer, starting in 2009, an accelerated two-year JD program.  The press release states that graduates of this program would have to take the same credit hours as the three year JD program, but would spend one summer taking courses and also mini-courses that shorten holiday breaks.  Notably, the accelerated students would still have the same internship opportunities (not sure how this actually works yet).

Not surprisingly, initial reaction from legal academia has been negative.  Law schools take three years for a reason — students need three years to adequately develop the skills necessary to be an able lawyer upon graduation.  Recently, law schools have been criticized for a third-year that seems pointless to some students given the cost of tuition and the inability to go immediately into the job market.  But the third year finds students studying serious core courses found on the bar exam, and allows for concentration in specialty areas that would be difficult to learn once in practice.

If a law degree takes as long as an MBA, how will the profession compare to other professions?  Can a two-year terminal degree really carry the name “doctorate”?  Interestingly, in medicine the trend to a shortened degree program never found a lot of steam.  Six year programs are few, and they do not skimp on any of the medical requirements, just eliminate the liberal art component of the four-year undergraduate education.  And of course once one passes the boards and graduates, the same rules apply for residencies.  But a shortened law program does not seem to have the same built-in protections.  Also, if law school takes only two years and costs less than it does currently, more people will want to become lawyers at a time when the profession regularly hears that it has too many lawyers (even though the needs of underserved populations continue to be unmet).

Will this be a good or bad development for the legal profession?  Only time will tell.  As a law school graduate, I think the three years has intrinsic value.  I would like to see changes to the curriculum that benefit the industry in terms of training skills, but that to me seems like another reason for keeping the third year rather than eliminating it.  It takes time to absorb the methodology and substantive components of law; shortening the time to complete that absorption must result in a loss somewhere comparatively, whether in knowledge, depth or opportunities.  But perhaps Northwestern has found a way to meet all these current needs in a shorter but more intense two-year period.  I certainly will withold judgment until I see the full details of the proposed plan (not to be released until Friday).

What do you think — is six-year law a good idea, given that we already have six-year med?  Or is a two-year law degree insufficient for a variety of reasons?  Share your thoughts!

The GRE has been evolving over the last few years — the most significant change would be the move to computer-adaptive test taking — in order to make the test more relevant, i.e. more predictive of future success.  Not so long ago, the GRE contained vocabulary, critical reading, grammar, mathematics (all very similar to the SAT) and analytical and logical reasoning (very similar to the LSAT).  Critics argued the GRE needed a writing component, so they switched out the multiple choice of logical and analytical reasoning and replaced them with two essays involving analysis of, and making, an argument.  More recently, the GRE added new question types for passage completions (same model as sentence completions except spread over a paragraph) and student-produced response in math.

The latest change, however, represents a real shift in structure.  The GRE wants to gauge more intangible qualities like communication skills and ethics, so it has created the “Personal Potential Index” — a numerical index that supervisors and educators complete about the test taker.  On paper, this seems like a good idea.  But this mechanism suffers from two flaws.  First, the index is not from the student taking the test but others who watch his or her behavior.  We already have letters of recommendation that do this very task.  A standardized test should test the student, not his or her associates.  Second, by relying on educators and supervisors, the GRE introduces a form of index inflation — how many educators or supervisors will tank their own?  How likely is it they will be extra glowing in their reports?

A few years ago, I wrote a law review article analyzing the LSAT.  I proposed expanding its scope to include traits like communication skills, negotiation strategies, problem solving abilities and ethical dilemmas.  But the type of addition I proposed involved an additional test completed by the applicant, not a reporting index.  I applaud the GRE for focusing on intangibles, but suggest they move more toward a student-produced measure of these skills.

The larger question becomes one of fit — does the GRE serve the right goals in helping graduate schools make good admission choices?  Certainly, the GRE contains a broad measure of basic skills.  But the degree of difficulty between the GRE and SAT is not that different, and four years of college should create a larger divide.  The writing component has helped significantly add an analytical argument dimension.  But we are talking about future professors, psychologists — future PhD holders.  Should we not expect more at the entry point?  At least as much as we demand of future lawyers and doctors?  Or is there some qualitative difference between doctoral degrees?  I think graduate excellence is graduate excellence, and the GRE could do more to measure those skills and make a statement that we expect more of any future PhD candidate.

Thoughts?

After quite a bit of work, we are proud to announce our new site is LIVE! 

The goal of the site is to provide not just detailed information about our services, but to create a community forum on education-related issues in St. Louis.  We will be constantly updating the site with information parents, students and educators can use, from test dates and other practical information to challenging questions of the day and week to discussions of current developments and concerns in education.  Our Moving Minds blog will reflect a great deal of this content, and will update daily.  So please check it out and join in the discussion, and encourage others to join as well!  To receive updates about the site and us, please join our mailing list.

We would like to thank all the staff at The Net Impact for helping us launch this significant upgrade to our internet presence.  Great work!