Tuesday, May 1, 2012
ABA May Eliminate LSAT Requirement for Law School Admission
An ABA committee has tentatively agreed on two alternative approaches to the current requirement in the Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools that all law school applicants must take a valid and reliable admissions test.
The first approach would keep a pared-down version of the current requirement in the standards. The second would eliminate the requirement altogether.
Neither vote, taken during a Friday meeting of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar’s Standards Review Committee, was binding. But the two votes taken together reflect a deep division among committee members over whether such a requirement is necessary, an issue over which the committee has gone back and forth several times already.
The existing standard, known as the LSAT requirement, says that a law school must require each first-year applicant to take a valid and reliable admissions test to assist the school and the applicant in assessing the applicant’s capability of successfully completing the school’s education program.
- LSAT Blog, LSAT Requirement May be Eliminated:
In this post, I address 3 questions:
- What is the LSAT requirement?
- Why would the committee consider dropping it?
- How would this affect law school admissions?
https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2012/05/aba-may-.html
Comments
If Obama is serious about really taking on the tuition/loan subsidy scam, this is an excellent place to start.
You would have to be an idiot not to see the suddenly popular move to eliminate the LSAT to be the handiwork of dozens of *extremely* corrupt law schools who clearly realize that in order to shield their revenue streams - they are going to have to admit an increasing number of monied (or at least government subsidized) morons.
But so long as the LSAT exists - their perfidy will be blatant and unavoidable (like when the whores over at Harvard stopped submitting certain stats to US News and World Report a few year back).
These criminal-enterprises-formerly-known-as-law-schools won't be able to hide their utter prostitution if one year's LSAT median can be compared to the next.
The answer?
Drop the LSAT down the memory hole.
After *that*, law "schools" will lobby the ABA to permit the admission of corpses.
And the ABA will quickly agree...
Posted by: cas127 | May 1, 2012 11:46:45 PM
Does the LSAT really predict a more qualified lawyer? Do the law schools really care, some may but their job is to put bodie$ in seat$
If the LSAT is an imperfect test, why have it? It is NOT the only way to compare students. No matter what the test, LSAT, GMAT, SAT, ACT or DL none of them mean you will turn out to be the "best" in anything. There are many people who should never be granted a Drivers License let alone a JD.
The LSAT does not prove you can do legal research, nor argue the law in court, nor understand the words used.. All the LSAT does is try to weed out what is considered weak and unfit to sit it a seat. People learn differently, people who do poorly on test can and do turn out successful. The question becomes how do you define success?
Getting a high score on a test and graduating with a JD? I think not,I have a family member who should not drive nor has the ability of common sense yet is a JD.
What do you care if someone goes to law school and can't get a job? I do not have a JD but am better in the courtroom of life and I make more $$$$$ and have never totaled a car (family member with JD 5 totaled cars)
Posted by: Bob Davis | May 1, 2012 2:51:36 PM
Of course, they want to eliminate the LSAT. Law schools would love to be able to ignore ability in exchange for diversity.
Posted by: Bruce | May 1, 2012 1:13:34 PM
While an imperfect test, the LSAT (or any other standardize test such as the GMAT or SAT) is the only way to compare students using a single uniform standard nationwide. And, as much as the progressive crowd loves to hate it and call it racist, it does serve as a fairly accurate predictor of law school performance.
As noted above, this proposal helps to shine a big ray of sunlight on the true motive of those running law schools: cushy jobs for the faculty and administration, with the students being cash cows first, and customers or students second.
Posted by: Todd | May 1, 2012 10:28:21 AM
Just what we need, lesser qualified people becoming unemployable lawyers with huge student debts.
Wake up, legal profession! Does anyone even CARE that students are being ripped off? Whoops, sorry; these are "lawyers" and law school administrators and professors doing the ripping off.
They missed the elective regarding legal and human ethics.
Posted by: jgreene | May 1, 2012 8:21:34 AM
I thought we already had a glut of lawyers, anyway? I don't see the problem for the public, just for the law schools.
Posted by: guffaw | May 1, 2012 7:55:21 AM
Cas127
WHOA, you must be an attorney trying to protect your cushy job and benefits.
Are you afraid that someone who did not take the LSAT but graduated with Honors, could whip you in a court of law.
Are you a man or a mouse? Have you not heard of the Free Market and competition?
Posted by: Bob Davis | May 2, 2012 7:14:03 PM