In this episode of Status Check with Spivey, Mike sits down with the original LSAT cheating scandal whistleblower, who we call "Travis" in this podcast, and Dave Killoran, Founder and CEO of PowerScore. They discuss Travis' investigation process, how he tried to sound the alarm, LSAC's response, why he came to Mike and Dave, and an analysis of what happened and what's next for the future of the test.
You can listen and subscribe to Status Check with Spivey on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube. You can read a full transcript of this episode with timestamps below.
Full Transcript:
Mike: I'm glad to be with Dave Killoran and “Travis.” And we're talking about the recent cheating allegations concerning the LSAT. Travis, you're the original whistleblower. I wanted to click on two quick things before we dig into your story, Travis, and then Dave colors in. My entire adult career has been law school admissions. Over 25 years ago, I remember getting into this thing. When you start off in admissions, a lot of people start off in their twenties. And you don't even realize what's happening, but every year, LSAC is flying you out to these conferences. I am not making this up; one year it was literally a boat ride to an island with steak and lobster and entertainment. But you're in your early twenties; you're not processing this as an LSAC-hosted conference. What you are processing are the sessions you go to, which talk about how important the LSAT is as a metric for admissions. Now, I would argue as someone who's done this for 26 years—my entire adult life—I think that a standardized test that is valid and reliable is really important to the admissions process. You have to make incredibly difficult decisions when you're in admissions, and you want information. Information is important. But there are two problems now.
[1:33] One, is that information valid? Does it have integrity? And two, I think there's this inculcation in our minds, including mine, that it’s the LSAT that's part of the admissions process and not standardized tests that are good. So I wanted to put that out there, because here's the problem: we know that there's cheating going on. We know it. LSAC would love to say—except for if they listen to this podcast, they might course-correct—you'll hear them say this: "If it's one person, it's one too many." So that'll be their line. There's a reason why they retained legal counsel, and they haven't even been sued for this. There's a problem going on. They didn't go public. I spoke to them on the phone, and they alluded to the fact that they would go public if this was a big issue. So we have their words implicating this as a big issue. And now I'm going to turn it over to you, Travis. How did you first find out about this?
Travis: It was actually pretty easy to find out. I mean, I'm a Chinese international student. I use RedNote. And those posts about cheating, how to cheat, you know those advertisements, they're everywhere on RedNote. And I took the LSAT a while ago, and back in the day, I didn't see any of those RedNote posts. But today, probably starting last year, I've started noticing those advertisements on RedNote.
And, you know, I thought it was impossible to do because the LSAT is so hard to cheat, and there's technology and all that to prevent cheating. I never believed that there was actual cheating; there could be scammers on RedNote, right? But yeah, that's when I started digging a little bit. I thought, "Oh, why not just find out if there's actual cheating?"
[3:17] Mike: Let's just make clear: you've already started law school, you're never taking the LSAT again, but that's when you wanted to dig in as a curious or good actor.
Travis: Also for fairness, it took me a long time to study for the LSAT, and I just feel it's unfair for people to just pay for a service or for some materials to cheat and to get a higher score than I got. So that was probably one of the reasons why I started digging a little bit. And I talked to a lot of people on RedNote. There are also RedNote posts complaining about the cheating incidents, like people who are actually studying for the test, and they're complaining about cheating. “It's everywhere. Its so unfair,” and all of that. I started seeing those posts last year. And I started investigating. I started talking to some of the cheaters I found. I think they are cheaters; they might be lying. I found some cheaters on RedNote and talked to them, and that's how I investigated this whole thing.
Mike: Let me ask Dave a question real quick. If Travis can be doing this, can and should LSAC test security be doing the same thing?
Dave: I assume you're talking about investigating the problem there, because Travis didn't cheat, so let's be clear about that.
Mike: Well yeah, but if he can be digging in and investigating?
[4:39] Dave: Yes. And it's possible that they were. Also, they're not Chinese nationals and they may not have had the skillset at that point. I do know now they're aware of it, obviously, thanks I think largely to Travis, and that they are looking into it. But you could say that they had an obligation to look into this and maybe could have pursued that more diligently.
Travis: Yeah. It's fairly easy to spot who's real Chinese, who's not real Chinese. So they could have hired a Chinese investigator maybe. And I’m saying, oh yeah, it’s easy to spot, like, when you chat, when you use the Mandarin language, it's easy to spot a Chinese national.
Mike: Travis, they're somehow a non-profit that's sitting on $250 million in assets whose Credential Assembly Services made them $93 million in the last three years, whose former president made over $1 million a year. I'm pretty sure they could have afforded to hire someone in China.
So you're investigating because it irks you, for lack of a better word. You're bothered.
Travis: Right.
Mike: Right. You studied a lot, and you're bothered. Was there a moment when you said, "Okay, these aren't scammers, this is real"? And then what did you do with that information?
[5:49] Travis: So I did talk to some agencies, and they're posting about cheating. Like, when they are actually cheating, they take screenshots and they post them. I saw those things and I was like, "This is crazy." And then I talked to Dave, I was like, "Do you see this?" And he was shocked.
I also emailed the LSAC test security, and they told me they have processes, those obstacles to prevent cheating. They're trying their best to maintain the integrity of the test, all that. So I was like, "Okay, maybe this cheating thing is not real." Then I sent them some evidence. I never got a reply, but maybe they're investigating. I have no idea. That was around the end of April.
Mike: Of this year?
[6:39] Travis: Yeah, or early May, around then. And yeah, I emailed them a few times, and I was told they're investigating. Sometimes they don't tell people they're investigating, so oh, let me rest assured, it should be good. And then a couple weeks later, I got some materials. And you can't really say there's no cheating when you look at them. They’re the materials from the past real tests that are not disclosed. And I was like, "This is crazy." But I don't know if they're real, like if they're legit tests. So I talked to Dave, like, "Do you think they're real tests?" Dave was like, "Oh yeah, they are." And then I emailed the LSAC again. I don't remember when that was. Probably a month or two ago.
Dave: You actually sent me a test, because you were like, "I don't know if this is legitimate," which was a completely reasonable position to have. It could have just been a scheme or a scam. You sent me a test, and I'll admit I was floored when I looked at it, because I knew immediately that it was real just looking at the topics. Obviously, what we do is we track all the LSATs. So I knew that and I told you that. I was like, "This is in fact real." And I was able to figure out when they stole it, like the content that was, you know, the different LRs and RC that was in there. And even because these tests were stolen during Logic Games, there was Logic Games in there; this was stolen several years ago. That's when I knew we had a problem.
And at that point, I actually sent it to LSAC as well and talked to their test security. I was like, "This is an issue. There are apparently multiple stolen LSATs out here." So I think that's when you and I both were able to confirm, all right, this is real. And just to add a point to what you said: LSAC in my experience, whenever they do an investigation, they usually go silent, which I don't think is a bad policy. They start looking into it and they don't want to tip off the cheaters, so to speak. So I wasn't surprised that they weren't talking to you, but I was certainly worried about the scope of what we were seeing. But that was a while ago, well over a month.
[8:38] Mike: Is this a good time to talk about how, if it started two or three years ago, it was a less severe of an issue because of the compounding occurrences of test questions than it is now after we know they've been doing this for multiple tests?
Dave: Yeah. I mean, the fact that it's been going on for clearly a while is deeply concerning to me. And part of what we need to address is the nature of how they are cheating and really what they're doing, because I think that is really where the most problematic aspects of this occur The cheating isn't just one way of cheating; there are multiple ways of cheating. And as Travis kind of mentioned before, it's like, they're able to steal these tests, they're legitimately the case. You were able to look at a bunch of tests and say, "Hey, these all look real," and I was able to say they are real. They are cheating by taking screenshots of the exam as they go through it, which is one way. And they sometimes have people taking the test for you, and Travis, correct me if I'm wrong, and in other cases they're selling the stolen test to somebody who might not have enough money to have what we call a proxy test taker that's out there.
So even if they're not a proxy test taker, someone can get a hold of these exams and study them. And the LSAT, for those of you who don't know it, reuses content. They don't release the content, and then they reuse it some months or years later. It's kind of a standard procedure, and typically there's nothing wrong with it. But if someone has stolen content and then distributes it, then someone who accesses the stolen content could possibly see that on their test. We realized how big the leak was of the exams. That's when I think really it became code red for me. And I know, Travis, you were pretty upset about it too.
Travis: Yeah. And then later I got more evidence. Then I talked to some schools. I didn't send any evidence; I emailed some schools. And some of them replied. Then later, the LSAC announced shutting down China. You know, I have no idea what the internal process is, but that's everything I did.
[10:36] Mike: Did you ever show any schools the evidence that you showed LSAC?
Travis: I showed one school, and that's it. I didn’t email the test; I talked to them, and I used the secure send—whatever you call it. So yeah, I talked to one school directly about it and I showed them the evidence.
Mike: This is all before the August test that was online in China, correct?
Travis: You know what, let me quickly check my calendar.
Mike: I know for a fact I informed them during the test. I was texting with someone at LSAC.
Travis: Yeah. I talked to one school around when the test was going on. It was like the first week of August.
[11:14] Mike: So let's get a timeline. You give them credible evidence. I mean it's not just credible, it's real. They know what test they use. And then I'm texting them during the August test. [Dave,] you also texted them credible evidence, or you just told them before August, this is going on and it's big?
Dave: Well, I knew that it had been going on, so I’d actually messaged them earlier, but I don't think any of us understood the scope of it, and it was clear that they were real tests. But that came out right before the August test. So if you look at what happened with LSAC, they certainly had been tipped off earlier that there was some type of problem. You imagine that they go into investigation mode.
August comes up pretty quick. They didn't have a whole lot that I think they could have done by August. Content on the August LSAT was part of the leaked material or the cheated material, whatever we want to call it. We know that. But I don't think LSAC had enough time to respond to that.
It was after August that they said, "We clearly do have an issue, so we're going to shut down mainland China testing." And the next mainland China test is in October. So that didn't really address September, because September, there was not an international test that was in position. And I think for a lot of people, they're like, "Okay, we don't have to worry about September. September's free and clear." But of course, anybody who had access to those stolen tests and who came and took the LSAT in the US or Canada, if they saw repeat material, they'd have obviously a huge cheating advantage.
And so we kind of were thinking that what would happen here with September was that LSAC would largely just avoid material that was in the stolen tests. And they have largely—I will give them credit for this. The vast majority of test takers have seen what we call new content that has never been scored before and so really can't be cheated, so to speak. No one's seen it previously.
Unfortunately, a small number of test takers, and it’s very small overall, due to some kind of administrative circumstances have seen some material that was in the stolen tests. And so unfortunately, the problem isn't stamped out.
After having talked to LSAC, I think their plan for October is probably to not reuse any content. Also, they won't be having the test in mainland China. And all of that is really good. I applaud LSAC for making those steps. I'm disappointed that some stolen material was used here in September, and I am truly praying that in October there is no stolen material that is used.
But I think one of the problems, and Travis you might be able to speak to this to some extent is, every time there's an LSAT that's given, if it's given online, it can be stolen. Correct?
[13:46] Travis: I've seen people on RedNote—I don't know if they're actually doing this or not—but I've seen people on RedNote selling the August this year test. I don't know if they have the real test or not, but I've seen people selling the test. So I would imagine every time you have an online test, they could just take pictures of the real test. So I'm not surprised of that happening.
Mike: Dave, are you surprised that a single test—and I know it’s more than a single— on September had old hacked content that could be bought online? Did that surprise you that LSAC did that?
Dave: Yeah. I would say "shocked me" is more like it. I've had the opportunity, and I appreciate it with LSAC, where they have tried to convey to me that, you know, it was extremely limited and it was something they could not stop. It was already in the delivery system, so to speak. And, you know, we've had a disagreement about the importance of that. My theory is that if you allow any possible cheating, that's a very bad thing that shouldn't be going on. And their view is, "Look, the vast majority of people never had this issue. It's very unlikely that many, if any, people actually cheated." And they have a point. We just disagree on the importance of that.
So was I shocked? Yeah, honestly I was. And I was disappointed too. And I would be even more shocked if I got to October and there was any stolen material that was used. Honestly, for the integrity of this exam, it has to be locked down airtight.
[15:20] Mike: I just want to click on something, because I've known you for many years. For many years you have loved this test. So when you say you're disappointed, that's a strong statement, right?
Dave: It's probably mild because really, I’m super pissed about it, would be a better way of saying it. I love the LSAT. There are certain people in my life that, we all really just enjoy the test. We think it's a challenge. I've always thought it was extremely well made. I haven't loved some of the recent changes. I don't love online testing; I don't love the loss of Logic Games.
But when you get down to it, it really makes you think. And I feel invested. In fact, my entire professional career has been revolving around the LSAT. So I feel very invested in this test and what it means for law schools and law students. And so it is truly disappointing to me and upsetting when I see that there is something of this magnitude going on, and my view of the response is that it could be stronger.
Now if LSAC were sitting here, I'll play devil's advocate on their behalf. They would say, "We have moved heaven and earth to put in new content. We have spent a lot of time and money." And I'm like, "Yes, but did you spend enough to eliminate all of it? Not yet.” And what’s the bigger question to me, Mike, is we now know this is the case. We understand the different methods of cheating, we know the stolen tests are out there, we know it's a huge problem. What happens next?
We get through October. This doesn't stop the cheating problem. It's not as if November comes up and the problem is solved. Yeah, there's no international test. You can still cheat from afar using proxy testers because they can spoof IPs and get past that, and you still have that trove of stolen tests out there. Are you just going to avoid those forever?
They will have this problem as long as there's online testing. You and I talk a lot. We have talked about the fact that they probably need to get away from online testing for at least several years until they fix this problem. And that's where I'm mostly concerned now is what happens next.
[17:11] Mike: So right now they've only right now pointed at China. I have an issue, and I posted about this on LinkedIn. Dave and I were aware of this, and we said nothing. We were talking internally with LSAC. We said nothing to the public. And one of the reasons we didn't say anything to the public is we didn't want to have the market—until LSAC was willing to have the market know about this, Dave and I thought this was their responsibility. But what surprised me is two things.
One, that they said, "Look over there, look over there in mainland China." And the second surprise to me is how much of the market—and by market, I mean test takers—"Oh, this must just be a China issue," because the person selling the car is telling you the manufacturing issue is not in their country so the car's fine. We're talking to the salespeople. And the salespeople are saying this isn't an issue except for there, and for some reason the market's believing the salespeople. I just want to put a pin in this. This is happening domestically.
[18:08] Dave: Certainly the ability to cheat domestically is not hindered at all, either by proxy testing or by accessing the stolen tests. So the question, I think, Mike, you and I have debated this many times, is what's the volume of it, and how many people have cheated over the years? Is it thousands? I don't think so, but I also don't think that it's a hundred. You now, it's higher than that.
I don't really have a good sense of the scope of it because it's hard for me to see how long it's been happening. But I know it's serious, and I know they've stolen a lot of tests, so they've been at it for a long time. But you're right, because what they did was they said, "Oh, we stopped testing in mainland China," and that makes a lot of people feel like the problem is over.
The problem is not over. And in fact, we saw those cheating agencies in China almost immediately start trying to bypass that restriction. They started posting, "Oh, they're saying you can't test in China, but we can get you to test in China." There are just too many avenues here around the barriers that they're putting up.
[19:08] Mike: My concern is I have noticed, not just with LSAC, but, you know, when people have a large share, and in LSAC’s arena a dominant share of the market, that often they feel comfortable pointing the finger and not actually addressing the problem. So not only did they point to mainland China; on a phone call to me, I was talking about the culture of them having a tendency to try to hide things, and I could give examples. During COVID when they went to the LSAT-Flex, in December, LSAC on video to a bunch of pre-law advisors said the numbers were going to return to organic, natural levels of test takers. They also said on the same audio, "Please don't tell the external world. This is just for your ears." Now, the external world includes experts. One of those experts, Justin Kane, was a data analyst. Within minutes, he said, “That's impossible. There’s already more numbers than the previous year.” I loved his analogy: Thanos would have to snap his fingers and eradicate half the people who have already taken the test—now, half is not an accurate number—for it to return. To me, that is either a lie from LSAC or malpractice-like bad wording to the market.
So it's point the finger here and here, and my concern is, and maybe Travis or Dave, you can help me, are they just going to keep pointing the finger until someone puts this thing up on WikiLeaks and they have no more tests and they are done? In other words, are they going to be their own demise? Because I feel like this is a choose-your-own-adventure book, where at every twist and turn LSAC is turning to the wrong page and doing the wrong thing.
[20:45] Dave: I don't think they're going to be their own demise. There are ways out of this wilderness that they're in. And you and I both know the history of how some of this data gets looked at. We were both there during the scoring bubble of the pandemic, which is what you're referring to, and we both came to the same conclusion that there was no possible way that what they were saying was actually true or accurate. They had their reasons for saying it, I'm sure. But after the fact, we knew that the numbers couldn't come down.
But let me say this, though. You talked before about how we kind of sat on this information. I will say that we didn't really sit on it. What we did was we started agitating with LSAC. I know that you spoke to them multiple times. I spoke to them many times, and I repeatedly told them this is a five-alarm fire, you have to bring all hands on deck. And they were like, "Look, we've got a lot of issues that we're dealing with." I said, "There is no other issue. Cheating is a direct attack on the integrity of the test and therefore the integrity of the entire system. If you do not solve this instantly and overwhelmingly, you are going to have questions being raised about whether or not LSAT scores are true."
And this isn't limited to just Chinese students. One of the things that we saw online was like, "Oh, you know, it's a China thing." Yeah, you could say that there's an origination point there, but it's gotten past that. And so I don't want it to be like, "Oh it's just limited here." There are ways to cheat now because of this that are numerous, this is one of the reasons I got so upset when I was like,"How could you possibly use content here, even for a minimal number of people, on the September LSAT?" which is ongoing at the time of this podcast. There are people taking the September LSAT right now. It is very likely that some of them are seeing content that is in that cheating or stolen test trove.
So, we did everything we possibly could. We also didn't want to alarm the market. I didn't want to make people upset. And I also didn't want to Streisand Effect this, where we started talking about something that was relatively minor and made it into a big deal.
But after that, LSAC pulled back from China, and I feel like at that point, they made the acknowledgment publicly that they have an issue. What I want to see from them, though, going forward is even more. I know they're doing a lot; they have made that quite clear to me. They have said repeatedly, "We have moved heaven and earth”—that’s an actual quote from them—“to try to stop this." And I said, "Well, move more. You haven't done enough. There's still poison out there. We have to eliminate the poison from the water. It has to be clear."
[23:06] Mike: Dave, if you were in charge of LSAC, would you have done September online, and would you have used old test questions that you know were hacked?
Dave: I would've done September. I would've done it online, but I would not have used any questions that I knew were compromised.
Mike: And we know for a fact that happened.
Dave: We know for a fact that happened. Now, LSAC's response when presented with that proof is, it didn't happen for many people, and it was a very specialized set of people who we could not turn back from having that material. They had to send out early.
Mike: They were strongly implying there would be no hacked questions on the September test. They're the ones that pulled that lever. I don't care how much they play the victim; they pulled the lever.
[23:45] Dave: I told them just today, I was like, "I don't care what the excuse is, none of that material should have been used. I don't care if you had to fly people to the various locations and distribute new material. There is a way around this, and I feel like you could have done more." So yeah, it was a contentious exchange. I think on their hand, they're like, "We've done so much." I'm like, "Yeah, but you didn't get it all. It's not about getting most of it, it's about getting all of it."
That's why October I think will be very important, but even more so in November, because what I don't want to have happen is this just gets swept under the rug. What Travis discovered is significant. There are just a massive number of tests that have been breached. And what's worse is, every LSAT that is given online is also being stolen.
Travis, you already talked about seeing on RedNote that there were references to the August LSAT. I am sure we will start to see references to the September LSAT here in a couple weeks. Every online test can be compromised. LSAC has to look at this and say, "We cannot give online tests over and over again if there's ever any reused content."
Mike, as you and I know, they don't have the content in their library of unused tests to sustain this forever. So they're coming to a crisis point. They're going to have to make some type of decision where they use less reused content, maybe give fewer LSATs. They've got to increase their content. I don't know how fast they can do that. And that is, I think, the biggest challenge.
Mike: This is where I think monopolistic complacency comes in. We just interviewed former CIA [Director] General David Petraeus, who talked about not having a plan B, but C, D, E, F, and G. Surely when they went online, someone should have fired the neural sequence of, "maybe this could be hacked," and then someone over the last three years should have said, "We need to have a whole separate database in case that happens." But that didn't happen. Correct? And is that because the online test is lucrative for them and they're making money and they never have to worry in their minds, "Well we don't have to go in-person, we're making money"?
[25:48] Dave: Look, if you look at the history of online testing and if you look at standardized testing in Asia, it's not as if cheating was unexpected. The SAT had severe problems with this, and I believe the ACT did as well. There's also been theft of GRE and GMAT online tests. So if you look around at your compatriots and you say, "Hey, these other tests which are big American standardized tests, they’ve had cheating problems," that should have been built in.
Yeah, they should have had a plan B, C, or D. If you think about it, Mike, one of the things we know that happened, it was that towards 2018, they increased the testing calendar. It used to be that the LSAT was four times a year, and it was four tests only. Everybody got the same exact test. And then when Kellye Testy came in as the new president, one of the things that she focused on was a greater degree of access and equity to the LSAT, so they increased the number of tests. I believe one year they ran nine, and then they settled into this current schedule of eight.
Eight's a lot of tests. The LSAT is a very well-made test; it's not easy to make. Eight is a lot. But then when they went online with the Flex and then the pandemic, they started doing the tests over multiple days, and then instead of using a single test, they used multiple forms.
So not only did they increase the number of tests, they increased the burn rate of the exams inside those. And that is when we knew that they had a problem, because they didn't have enough of that library. So to me, Mike, what's been happening there—and this is conjecture—is that they sat and they said, "Well, we've got to keep up with this new world where we're using way more LSATs than before." So they never had a chance to make a library.
They dove into the deep end. And ever since then it's been a struggle to keep up. And it's made them very predictable. We spend a lot of time predicting what they're going to do, and we are right over and over about it because we can see that they don't have a whole lot of tests.
So I think they're in a real jam, to be honest with you. They don't have a big library of exams, and now a bunch of that library has been exposed. So where they go from here is a really interesting question, because it's going to take a massive amount of resources. You mentioned before the kind of resources they're sitting on. I think they're going to have to spend a big portion of it right now.
[27:48] Mike: They also have a class-action claim against them. If that goes to discovery—I'm no lawyer, but I'm going to bet they settle so that discovery never sees the light of day.
Let's bring you back in for some final thoughts, Travis. Are you happy with how LSAC responded to you, responded to the market, and are you going to keep digging?
Travis: If I can, yes, for sure. I would love to. But I've been pushing for changes, that's for sure. You know, I started talking to you a few weeks ago, I talked to some schools, I talked to Dave, and pushed for changes. But other than that, I don't think there is anything I can do. Am I happy with what the LSAC has done? I feel like they've done a lot of things. They're using new tests for the September test. They shut down China. But, like we've been saying, they could be doing more. In my mind, they should go back and investigate those past scores, and they should shut down online testing altogether in the future.
Mike: I think that what LSAC may say is, "Look at that jerk Spivey and that mean person Killoran putting Travis on the spot." But you came to us. You went to them. You put this on their radar.
[29:00] Travis: Yeah. And I can tell you this story. I've never told you guys about it. But back in probably 2022, 2023, I actually heard about a cheating case and reported it to the LSAC. And I don't know what happened afterwards, but this thing has been going on for a long time. And I really hope that the LSAC could go back and check those past scores, especially the scores from this year and last year, because last year was when I started seeing those advertisements everywhere on RedNote. So I would imagine there's probably quite extensive cheating going on that I hope they could investigate.
Mike: Well, let's differentiate—and let me defend LSAC for a second, or play devil's advocate at least. There's a differentiation between attempts at selling the test, which you think is widespread, and attempts at buying the cheated test, which quite frankly I don't think any of us knows. My whole point would be, LSAC doesn't even know either, which is why they [should] shut this problem down and go in-person ASAP.
Travis: Yeah. We don't know the actual extent of cheating, but I do think it's worth investigating.
Dave: Yeah. And I want to make a few comments here. Which is first, Travis, that you're the good guy in all of this. Each turn, you've done the right thing. You've notified people at LSAC, you've sent them proof what was happening was happening. You've raised the alarm over and over, and when they didn't really respond to you, you went out to people like me and Mike and said, "Can you help?" So I really look at you as the guy who has done the most right here in terms of this. For that, I think you should be applauded.
Mike: Couldn't agree more.
Travis: Yeah, thank you.
[30:42] Dave: And as far as LSAC, as I've said, they have made a point to me of how much effort they've already put into this, and I think that's great. They clearly recognize that there is a problem here. My issue is this is that,: there isn't a problem. This is the problem. You have to do everything.
And a lot of times in big corporations—and let's not delude ourselves, LSAC is a big corporation—there are all these discussions of the bottom line and costs and how much effort administratively things will take, and, you know, ”We couldn't get this done,” or “Things couldn't be changed in a short period of time.” I don't care about any of that. I think that's irrelevant, because when the integrity of really the reason for your being is in question and under fire and being attacked—and it is being attacked—you do everything. I don't care how much money you have to spend, I don't care how many more people you have to add to test security or whatever to check scores or do what have you. And that's what I really want to see from LSAC. This is a first step. "Hey, we're going to pull back from mainland testing. We're going to use new material." That's great. I know that's not sustainable forever, so what are you going to do that's the big move? Don't delay in announcing it. The sooner that they can announce that they are dropping online testing, using fewer LSATs, using only new material for a while, the more they can thwart the cheaters that are out there. They have to push themselves. And I realize it'll be painful from a financial and a time standpoint and just the hassle of it. It doesn't matter. This is an existential threat to their existence. They need to recognize that.
[32:18] Mike: Imagine a world where U.S. News—and I don't think this is going to happen, but anything can happen; they just lost their 49-year chief rankings officer, Bob Morse—imagine a world where they've already been applauded for diminishing the admissions inputs, increasing bar passage and employment. What if they just said, "Hey, we're going to get rid of the LSAT"?
It sounds like I'm coming down hard on LSAC. You know, my experience with them hasn't always been great. But imagine a world where they keep trying to sweep this under the rug and U.S. News says, "The heck with it." That's an existential threat to them.
Dave: Absolutely.
Mike: And I know maybe they're going to say this isn't fair, and we have our side—and they do have their side. To be fair, they are completely doing things that I'm not aware of.
Dave: They're not sweeping it under the rug, because they already made an announcement about it.
Mike: Fair. I mean, they made an announcement about mainland China. They didn't use the word "domestic" once.
Dave: Yeah.
[33:06] Mike: The hope would be that, when people talk about stuff like this, okay, there's a problem and there's a solution, which is go in-person. The hope is that also they realize what you just clicked on, that it's an existential problem, so it's not a priority, it's your only priority.
Dave: It is. It's like that sub up in the North Atlantic. You have to have complete integrity at all times. If you lose integrity at all, it just collapses. And I think they seem to want to say, "Hey, we are working on it." And I'm like, "This isn't about just working on it. This should be a massive undertaking, and you should be forward about what you're doing and front-facing to the public about, 'Hey, we think there's a problem. Well. you can trust us because we're doing this, this, this, this, and this.'" Not just a few steps.
That's not how they operate, Mike. You and I both know that. In years past, they could play it very close to the vest. You know, my experience with them has been a lot better in the last seven, eight years than it was beforehand. I think prior to that, I was public enemy number one or two to them, and it's been a lot better recently. I feel like my relationship is good, and I'm glad that it is because it's allowed me to at least pound the table and say, "Look, I don't have any power inside your organization, but at least I can tell some people that may have a voice, you need to do the most here. Not just a lot, the most.”
[34:24] Mike: I'll end my thoughts on this note: they do have a new president. I believe from all my colleagues and friends who are deans that she's an ethical actor. There are problems with in-person too. I get that there's no perfect answer. Because there are accessibility problems. But I think we can all maybe end on the note that the sooner they can try their best to make this test hermetically sealed from hackers, which would be in-person on paper or on LSAC tablets, the better. And I'm hopeful that this new president is marching in that direction.
Dave: That's what I think needs to happen.
Travis: Yeah. I agree.
Mike: I want to thank you for reaching out to us, Travis. Dave, I want to thank you for making the time. It's a busy time for all of us. So stay safe out there, folks.
Dave: Thanks, Mike.
Travis: Yeah. Just want to say one final point. So if anyone has any evidence of cheating, we would love to know, because I don't know everything, right? I know some of the ways to cheat and all that. I don't know everything. So please, if you know something, let us know, anonymously if you want.
Mike: I think the way to do it is, let Dave know, let me know, and let LSAC know. Thanks for making the time.
Travis: All right, have a good weekend, guys.
Mike: Thanks.