Deans from over half of the nation’s law schools are trying to salvage a longstanding rule that mandates using the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) or other standardized tests in admissions. Rather than allowing law schools to adopt a fully test-optional approach as planned, the deans are urging the American Bar Association’s (ABA) Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar to amend the rule, enabling schools to admit up to 25% of new students without requiring a standardized test score.
The proposal put forth by the deans represents a compromise between the current rule, which permits schools to admit up to 10% of the class without such scores, and the ABA’s plan to eliminate the standardized test requirement by 2025, aiming to provide schools with greater flexibility in student selection.
The council of the ABA’s legal education section overseeing law school accreditation standards is scheduled to discuss the deans’ proposal during its meeting in Chicago on Friday.
The proponents of this compromise include deans from prestigious institutions such as the University of Pennsylvania, UC Berkeley, and the University of Michigan, as well as deans from lower-ranked and unranked schools. In a letter to the ABA signed by 125 deans, representing 63% of ABA-accredited law schools, they also request that the ABA evaluate the proposed change within six years of implementation to ensure there are no “unintended consequences.”
Advance your legal career and achieve your professional goals – sign up for LawCrossing now.
The deans express concerns about the difficulty of reversing course once an admissions test is abandoned, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of the long-term impact.
The LSAT requirement has been a subject of intense debate for several years, but the push to eliminate it gained momentum in early 2022. The proposal has sparked divisions within the legal academic community, with opponents and proponents focusing on its potential impact on law student diversity and consumer protection.
Supporters of the LSAT argue that eliminating the test would increase reliance on subjective measures, such as the prestige of an applicant’s undergraduate institution, which could disadvantage minority applicants. They emphasize that the LSAT provides a standardized evaluation that helps level the playing field.
On the other hand, proponents of removing the test requirement assert that the LSAT is flawed and serves as a barrier for minority aspiring lawyers, as they tend to score lower on average compared to white test-takers. Citing a 2019 study, they highlight that the average LSAT score for Black test-takers was 142, whereas it was 153 for white and Asian test-takers.
Under the existing rule, law schools must use a “valid and reliable” test for admissions, with the LSAT and the GRE being the accepted options. Schools that opt for an alternative standardized exam must demonstrate their ability to predict law school performance effectively.
In response to the ongoing discussions, the Law School Admission Council, responsible for administering the LSAT, expressed support for the dean’s proposal. In a statement, they urged the ABA Council to reconsider its direction, citing the consensus among deans.
As the ABA’s legal education section convenes to deliberate the proposed compromise, the future of the LSAT and standardized testing in law school admissions hangs in the balance. Stakeholders are closely watching the outcome of these discussions, as it could have significant implications for aspiring law students and the overall landscape of legal education.