ABA Recommends Eliminating Standardized Test Requirement For Admissions into Law School

Cant Get Right

https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/council_reports_and_resolutions/may22/22-may-memo-revisions-501-503.pdf

Well that’s crazy. What does everyone think?

Persistence_beats-resistance28

Insights?

LSWkndWrrior-1

I think like the SAT, the LSAT is just another standardized test that does not relate to being able to graduate law school or pass the BAR.

canihazJD

1. Impact will likely depend on whether USNWR retains it as a rankings metric. The MCAT is not "required" but most med schools use it. Counterpoint: unlike the LSAT, the MCAT actually functions to ensure applicants have baseline prerequisite knowledge for the intended professional program. But I wholeheartedly disagree with the general opinion that the LSAT is not applicable to law school. I think the skills transfer near directly... but that's another discussion. Yes, I am debating myself... it's finals week.

2. While not perfect the LSAT is probably the most objective part of the application, and is (in my opinion) a significant contributor to social mobility in the US. If there is a movement away from it, I hope schools make meaningful adjustments to admissions processes. As "hollistic" as they all claim to be, as things stand now, your average community college to state school grad without access to meaningful opportunities, connections, diversity factors, or some other in is going to be severely disadvantaged without the ability to kick in the door with a killer LSAT score.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

redleo500

If you are studying hard for the LSAT but not planning on applying for a few more years I think you may have reason to be concerned/happy that the LSAT will not occupy as central a role in the process by the time you apply. Agree with canihazJD that the test's primacy in the US News rankings is what really matters here. If they don't change their formula at all, this change is unlikely to matter at all. If they reduce the importance of LSAT scores in their formula, the importance of the test will probably also decline. Even in that scenario, though, I think US News would probably change their process over the course of several cycles, and schools would in turn take time to respond and would continue to value high LSAT scores at a similar rate until they had a firmer grasp on how the rankings had changed.

TL,DR: I think there's very little reason for people applying this fall to worry unless you see US News announce a drastic change in how they value LSAT scores in their rankings in the coming weeks.

caitosei

May no longer be required however, will likely be recommended for applications along with the GRE.

Cant Get Right

I agree with a lot of what's been said already, and I don't think much will change. Law schools won't be required to have standardized testing, but they will still have to find a way to process applicants. The LSAT has empirically proven to be an effective way to do that. And I'd agree that the skills necessary to crush the LSAT are totally relevant to succeeding in law school. Law school has problems of its own that make it so nothing can really predict success as far as 1L grades go, but if we think of success in terms of transforming into a bad-ass lawyer instead of Acing doctrinals, then yeah, the LSAT is relevant. At least in my case, it was actually a part of the process of transformation.

I know a lot of people hate on the LSAT--fewer here than most places--but I totally agree with @canihazJD that it is an opportunity, not a barrier. That was certainly true for me. I don't have anything in my biography that's particularly interesting in any objective sense. And one bad semester in undergrad took my GPA from above all T14 medians to below them. So the LSAT was the only thing I had to show the top schools what I could really do. And I took that opportunity and I showed them. I do think more holistic admissions would make for a more equitable process, but the LSAT should be an important part of that.

Ultimately, I do think US News is more important than ABA. That's dumb, but as long as applicants care about the rankings and as long as admissions stats are a significant part of those calculations, the schools will have to prioritize their numbers in order to compete for the best applicants. The problem in law school admissions isn't the law school admissions offices, or even US News, and certainly not the LSAT. It's applicants. As long as rankings drive the priorities of applicants, law school admissions offices will be responsive to that.

Jonathan Wang

Forget about the practical admissions implications for a moment. OK, no more LSAT - what's the new system?

I have yet to hear a single reasonable argument for why eliminating the LSAT would make the process fairer overall, but I am always open to being wrong.

canihazJD

@"Jonathan Wang" said:
Forget about the practical admissions implications for a moment. OK, no more LSAT - what's the new system?

I have yet to hear a single reasonable argument for why eliminating the LSAT would make the process fairer overall, but I am always open to being wrong.

I don't think there is one. The best anyone's mustered so far is how disadvantaged lower socioeconomic classes are when it comes to LSAT prep... as if elite undergraduate institutions and unicorn extracurriculars aren't that several times over. The LSAT is an equalizer no other profession has to a similar degree. But hey, seatbelts and airbags can sometimes hurt you so let's get rid of those too.

Lime Green Dot

@mispivey said:
TL,DR: I think there's very little reason for people applying this fall to worry unless you see US News announce a drastic change in how they value LSAT scores in their rankings in the coming weeks.

Yes, I think the article said the earliest any changes could take effect is the Fall '23 cycle. Possibly more news to come on this post-May 20 when ABA discusses things further. 🤞🏻

I've been studying for this test for a couple of years plus now with a Fall '23 entry aim, ironically... I'm really not sure what I'd think if, at the end of the day, it might not be a requirement after all. Maniacal laughter to ensue at minimum? Yes. 😂

aaronjin3297-1

This is the new world we live in. It is what it is. We have decided to play this game of life (as we all want to be Lawyers) so if this is the rules. Then we just gotta ball til we fall.

Lime Green Dot

If anyone's curious, there's been an update: https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/aba-council-seeks-views-fate-law-school-admissions-tests-2022-05-20/

"The public will get the opportunity to weigh in on whether the American Bar Association should eliminate a requirement that law schools use a standardized test, like the Law School Admission Test, to assess applicants." When and how aren't mentioned, but we may know more come November when ABA's Council reconvenes.

To those in the know: Since even that tentative earliest date is after the app cycle already opens for many (all?) schools... does that mean it's a relatively safe bet this cycle will be insulated from any effected changes?

Matt Sorr

@"Lime Green Dot" I am by no means "in the know," at least no more than anyone else, but I'd imagine no major changes will be happening this cycle. As you pointed out, the tentative earliest date is after the cycle opens for many schools. I don't see how they could gauge public opinion and make a swooping decision by this fall. Additionally, I'd imagine that even if some schools decide to make the LSAT optional, it'll still play a major role in admissions if the US News' rankings continue to place such emphasis on it.

I think about this topic the same as I think about the possible removal of logic games; if any major changes are coming, it surely won't be during the middle of a cycle. Again, though, I have no insider information, or anything or that sort, so I could be totally wrong.

Lime Green Dot

Thanks, @"Matt Sorr"! I know it's anyone's best prediction, so maybe should've prefaced it that way. I second your line of reasoning, but I guess we'll just wait and see. Best of luck on your LSAT/apps!

Matt Sorr

@"Lime Green Dot" best of luck to you as well!

Saaaammmm

Does the Lsat test mere ability or time (and money) spend on gaining ability? It seems to me that it is more of the ladder. Some get high diagnostics and score well. But a lot of people do not and have to (and do) spend a lot time to get there. Most of the persons on the podcasts spend 1+ year and many used a tutor (who make 10x as much as I make an hour). Non-podcasters do to. So, how objective is this score really? I just do not think it is very objective when time and money spend is unequal across the testing population. Other measures are not wholly objective either. But why add another non-objective measure?

Some above see it as an opportunity, to make up for a best semester. I think, if you have a bad semester, write an addendum. If you have two, write on as well. If you have more than that, then I think, other things being equal, somebody with a higher gpa should get prioritized.

For how many others is this test a burden? I am working full time and am EXHAUSTED after studying for 7-8 months. I cannot take a few months off. My college gpa is high. I have work experience. Why do I have to prove myself yet again?

Law schools are racially and economically non-diverse. Will removing the lsat change that? Maybe not. But with those numbers, its a hard sell to call it a significant contributor to social mobility in the US, especially when it tracks time and money spend and we have not tried not having it.

The skills the lsat tests are important. But how it tests them is so artificial: the ridiculous arguments and the unnecessary time constraint and the trick answer choices. While the skills may transfer, the material upon which they must be used does not.

I hope they make it optional and I hope that schools comply.

bornkippy

@canihazJD said:
1. Impact will likely depend on whether USNWR retains it as a rankings metric. The MCAT is not "required" but most med schools use it. Counterpoint: unlike the LSAT, the MCAT actually functions to ensure applicants have baseline prerequisite knowledge for the intended professional program. But I wholeheartedly disagree with the general opinion that the LSAT is not applicable to law school. I think the skills transfer near directly... but that's another discussion. Yes, I am debating myself... it's finals week.

1. While not perfect the LSAT is probably the most objective part of the application, and is (in my opinion) a significant contributor to social mobility in the US. If there is a movement away from it, I hope schools make meaningful adjustments to admissions processes. As "hollistic" as they all claim to be, as things stand now, your average community college to state school grad without access to meaningful opportunities, connections, diversity factors, or some other in is going to be severely disadvantaged without the ability to kick in the door with a killer LSAT score.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

This was me. I had to leave high school due to family issues, then later went and got my GED and went to CC then State School. I have a great GPA but terrible softs because I have two children and had no time to do anything but schoolwork. As much as I hate this test, I would not have any hope of going to any of my target schools without it.

Cant Get Right

@"sam.bellersen" said:
Does the Lsat test mere ability or time (and money) spend on gaining ability? It seems to me that it is more of the ladder. Some get high diagnostics and score well. But a lot of people do not and have to (and do) spend a lot time to get there. Most of the persons on the podcasts spend 1+ year and many used a tutor (who make 10x as much as I make an hour). Non-podcasters do to. So, how objective is this score really? I just do not think it is very objective when time and money spend is unequal across the testing population. Other measures are not wholly objective either. But why add another non-objective measure?

Some above see it as an opportunity, to make up for a best semester. I think, if you have a bad semester, write an addendum. If you have two, write on as well. If you have more than that, then I think, other things being equal, somebody with a higher gpa should get prioritized.

For how many others is this test a burden? I am working full time and am EXHAUSTED after studying for 7-8 months. I cannot take a few months off. My college gpa is high. I have work experience. Why do I have to prove myself yet again?

Law schools are racially and economically non-diverse. Will removing the lsat change that? Maybe not. But with those numbers, its a hard sell to call it a significant contributor to social mobility in the US, especially when it tracks time and money spend and we have not tried not having it.

The skills the lsat tests are important. But how it tests them is so artificial: the ridiculous arguments and the unnecessary time constraint and the trick answer choices. While the skills may transfer, the material upon which they must be used does not.

I hope they make it optional and I hope that schools comply.

I get where you're coming from. I don’t know any test of ability that doesn’t also test the means of improving that ability though. Whatever the process is, it will always be easier for those from more privileged classes. I worked through undergrad and was at a disadvantage to those that didn’t have a job in college. So maybe we shouldn’t consider GPA because it isn't fair and objective? I’d’ve liked that, but for better or worse, it’s a good predictor of success in law school. So unless we want a lottery system (and we absolutely don’t), I’m going to have to live with my sub-median GPA and how it affects my chances. I got into law school as a splitter. Others get in as reverse-splitters. I’m sure we’d all do better by doing away with the metric where we’re below median, but shutting out the LSAT doesn’t create more paths into law school, it creates fewer.

The other thing that often goes unmentioned in these types of discussions is that we could all be more willing to accept lower ranked law schools where our numbers fit. I talk about my "sub-median" GPA, but that's only true in the T-14 context. My GPA is actually pretty good. LSAT was a hassle, but I went from the low 150's to the low-mid 160's while working 60 hours a week in under 6 months. It sucked ass, but I did it on less than $100 worth of resources. And that qualified me to get in at a lot of good law schools. I didn't have to work on LSAT for another year after that to get into law school, so what are we talking about with these sorts of discussions: T-14 admissions or law school admissions? For law school admissions, I don't see a problem. The LSAT isn't keeping out anyone who would be a good law student at a good law school. If we're talking about T-14 then that's a completely different matter. Why do we have to prove ourselves yet again? Because we're aiming for the best of the best and it isn't easy and shouldn't be. I don’t think we get to be elitists while insisting on equal access. We want to get into the top law schools exactly because there isn't equal access to them. That's what makes them elite and that's what makes us want to go there.