We are constantly studying the law school market closely, with a specific focus on the following important topics:
- Portfolio Diversification: How are law schools expanding and adapting their program offerings?
- Entrance Requirements: How are admissions policies evolving in response to changing landscapes?
As part of this, we recently surveyed eight Law School Deans from across the spectrum of institutions, which helped to inform where these trends are heading. Below are our latest perspectives on these issues:
1. Law schools are already diversifying their portfolios and intend to expand on this
The data is clear that expanding product portfolios is en vogue right now. Every dean we surveyed already offers at least one program other than a J.D., and most are considering expanding their portfolio to include additional non-J.D. programs. This aligns with the market trends we have been watching – non-JD programs have grown at a significantly faster rate over the last five years compared to all graduate-level legal programs:
Data Source: American Bar Association
2. Law schools are responding to student demand for alternative admissions pathways
The number of law schools providing an alternative to the LSAT for admission increases each year. In our research of law schools’ entrance requirements, we found that at least two-thirds now accept the GRE, and other pathways such as JD-Next have gained traction in recent years.
It is clear that the market is moving in the direction of alternative pathways from a student demand perspective, and it’s expected that this trend will continue. Additionally, several deans indicated that their law school offers a pathway for prospects not currently associated with their institution, a potential way to increase their market share by attracting students who may not have otherwise considered their law school.
3. Although potential student demand for alternative J.D. admissions pathways exists, the jury is out on whether significant shifts in law school testing requirements will occur
Recently, the ABA approved a new variance process by which law schools can apply for permission to temporarily bypass the existing LSAT or other admissions test requirement for up to 100% of their entering class, assuming certain applicant requirements are met. Although this variance option is available for law schools to pursue, it is still too early to determine whether deans will take advantage of this, especially considering the ever-shifting sentiment within higher education regarding standardized tests. But overall, most of the deans we heard from do not believe that testing requirements will fundamentally change in the next 3-5 years, indicating that while many law schools do offer an alternative to the LSAT, testing is not likely to go away anytime soon.
4. Deans do not perceive a law school offering an alternative to the LSAT as less prestigious, removing one potential obstacle to implementation
Deans often have the formidable task of taking multiple stakeholder groups into consideration when making decisions about their law school, especially when rankings are at stake. The deans surveyed were unanimous in saying that they do not perceive a law school offering an alternative to the LSAT as making the law school itself less prestigious, so if that is one of the roadblocks for not pursuing this, it should now be removed. Acceptance of alternatives seems to be a growing trend, and law schools will not be punished in the rankings for being market-responsive in this area.
5. AI is expected to have a growing influence on the legal industry and, hence, legal education
AI is transforming the legal industry in a multitude of ways, such as improving research efficiency through its ability to summarize a vast amount of information quickly and accurately, as well as automating feedback regarding legal writing. Although there are certainly benefits to the profession overall, some trepidation in the industry exists regarding the possibility of AI impacting the demand for new lawyers, which may increase prospects’ hesitancy to pursue a law degree.
Law school deans appear to share a similar sentiment, with many anticipating AI to influence legal education in the next five years. Additionally, to ensure graduates are prepared for an evolving job market, some are anticipating the need for curricular changes, as well as the incorporation of technology training, something that some law schools may be ill-prepared to implement.
Taken together, shifts – albeit slow at times – are taking place in how law schools are thinking about and approaching their portfolio offerings and entrance requirements. As demand for legal education programs beyond the “typical” J.D. increases and alternative admissions requirements become more prolific, it will be critical for law schools to adapt their approach as necessary to remain competitive. This is an exciting and important time for legal education, and we will continue to monitor these trends as they unfold.
If you have any questions or comments about these trends or if your law school would benefit from a collaborative, objective strategic partner with proven higher education experience to help you navigate the myriad questions that should be answered specifically for your law school prior to implementing new offerings, or optimizing existing ones, please don’t hesitate to schedule a consultation with the Eduvantis team.