No LSAT required

Fire_Marshall_Bill

I'm quite poor, so I didn't pay $40 to bust through the pay wall

This must have been around when @creepycoug and Dazzler applied...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-the-lsat-required-fate-of-test-for-law-school-admissions-to-be-decided-11653048001?mod=e2fb&fbclid=IwAR2J9qEJtC1HxHn_TQH_9o0gLv1oChDQ9mzgkbD3zKRvPB5L5EM10IhZ_zo

pawz

For decades, budding law students have had to stare down the Law School Admission Test, or LSAT, a rigorous test of abilities in logic, analytical reasoning and reading comprehension.

Those days might be coming to an end.

An American Bar Association panel that accredits law schools issued a proposal Friday to make standardized tests optional for admission, a move that would follow a trend seen in undergraduate admissions offices and give schools more flexibility in how they select law students.

The accrediting council voted overwhelmingly to seek public comment on the proposal, which would eliminate the mandatory use of tests such as the LSAT or the GRE, which has been allowed at some schools in recent years.

Only one person on the 21-member body voted against advancing the proposal.

Any final approval of the policy change would likely be many months away—at the earliest, affecting students who enroll in the fall of 2023.

ABA officials have said little so far about their current deliberations. But in earlier discussions former leaders have suggested that standardized tests might deter institutions from adopting innovative ways to evaluate candidates.

“Issues concerning admission policies have been of concern to the Council for several years,” Bill Adams, managing director of ABA accreditation and legal education, said in a written statement.

The vote followed a recommendation from an ABA committee last month that called for eliminating the mandate that every law school require applicants to take a “valid and reliable” exam.

Even if mandatory admissions tests are dropped, at least some schools likely will still choose to consider them in some capacity.

“This is about discretion and flexibility,” said Daniel Rodriguez, former dean of Northwestern University Law School. “Well-meaning, well-intentioned law schools will continue to look at tests as part of a holistic admissions process.”

The LSAT has traditionally been regarded by schools as a strong predictor of how students will do in their first year of law school. Still, Mr. Rodriguez said that law schools, like other branches of higher education, should be trusted to determine how to use tests and evaluate candidates, particularly so they don’t stand as an obstacle to building diverse law-school classes.

Kellye Testy, president and chief executive of the Law School Admission Council, which administers the LSAT, said schools already can determine what weight to give the tests and that diversity is best promoted if the LSAT is used as one factor in a broader admissions process.

“Without the test scores you reward privilege more than potential,” Ms. Testy said. Other factors, such as which university a candidate attended or who recommends an applicant, are more prone to bias, she said.

Several years ago, Ms. Testy’s organization opposed a proposal to eliminate mandatory admissions tests. She said the group’s position remains the same.

The ABA council separately adopted a change last year that allowed law schools to accept scores on the GRE, a general graduate-school admissions test, in lieu of the LSAT. That switch came as some schools sought to attract students from a wider variety of backgrounds, particularly with science, engineering and math experience.

At the undergraduate level, hundreds of colleges and universities have scrapped mandatory entrance exams for admissions in favor of assessing applicants under a broader set of criteria, in part because disadvantaged students might not have the resources to prepare as well for standardized tests.

The ABA’s deliberations come as the Supreme Court is preparing to consider whether to eliminate the use of race as a factor in college admissions.

David Yellen, the departing CEO of the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, said a high-court ruling making all race-based admissions decisions unconstitutional would give schools an incentive to avoid testing requirements.

“It’s known beyond any dispute that some groups are disadvantaged by standardized tests,” said Mr. Yellen, the incoming dean of the University of Miami School of Law. “A test requirement combined with a ban on race-conscious admissions could be disastrous to having more diverse student bodies.”

Write to Deanna Paul at deanna.paul@wsj.com

rodmansrage

now do the same thing with the bar exam!

Bendintheriver

Just what we need, more rat children with comparative Lit degrees misrepresenting clients and interpreting law as if it were directly communicated from Mao himself.

You want to see school debt skyrocket? Make it easier to enable rat children to spend another 2-4 yrs on campus so they can further delay having to enter the real world.

Pitchfork51

I don't give a single flying fuck about diversity.

MikeDamone

Pitchfork51 said:

I don't give a single flying fuck about diversity.

You don't cherish it? Gavin Newsome does.

Swaye

Pitchfork51 said:

I don't give a single flying fuck about diversity.

Spoken just like a Canadian Mexican bigot.

creepycoug

creepycoug

pawz said:

For decades, budding law students have had to stare down the Law School Admission Test, or LSAT, a rigorous test of abilities in logic, analytical reasoning and reading comprehension.

Those days might be coming to an end.

An American Bar Association panel that accredits law schools issued a proposal Friday to make standardized tests optional for admission, a move that would follow a trend seen in undergraduate admissions offices and give schools more flexibility in how they select law students.

The accrediting council voted overwhelmingly to seek public comment on the proposal, which would eliminate the mandatory use of tests such as the LSAT or the GRE, which has been allowed at some schools in recent years.

Only one person on the 21-member body voted against advancing the proposal.

Any final approval of the policy change would likely be many months away—at the earliest, affecting students who enroll in the fall of 2023.

ABA officials have said little so far about their current deliberations. But in earlier discussions former leaders have suggested that standardized tests might deter institutions from adopting innovative ways to evaluate candidates.

“Issues concerning admission policies have been of concern to the Council for several years,” Bill Adams, managing director of ABA accreditation and legal education, said in a written statement.

The vote followed a recommendation from an ABA committee last month that called for eliminating the mandate that every law school require applicants to take a “valid and reliable” exam.

Even if mandatory admissions tests are dropped, at least some schools likely will still choose to consider them in some capacity.

“This is about discretion and flexibility,” said Daniel Rodriguez, former dean of Northwestern University Law School. “Well-meaning, well-intentioned law schools will continue to look at tests as part of a holistic admissions process.”

The LSAT has traditionally been regarded by schools as a strong predictor of how students will do in their first year of law school. Still, Mr. Rodriguez said that law schools, like other branches of higher education, should be trusted to determine how to use tests and evaluate candidates, particularly so they don’t stand as an obstacle to building diverse law-school classes.

Kellye Testy, president and chief executive of the Law School Admission Council, which administers the LSAT, said schools already can determine what weight to give the tests and that diversity is best promoted if the LSAT is used as one factor in a broader admissions process.

“Without the test scores you reward privilege more than potential,” Ms. Testy said. Other factors, such as which university a candidate attended or who recommends an applicant, are more prone to bias, she said.

Several years ago, Ms. Testy’s organization opposed a proposal to eliminate mandatory admissions tests. She said the group’s position remains the same.

The ABA council separately adopted a change last year that allowed law schools to accept scores on the GRE, a general graduate-school admissions test, in lieu of the LSAT. That switch came as some schools sought to attract students from a wider variety of backgrounds, particularly with science, engineering and math experience.

At the undergraduate level, hundreds of colleges and universities have scrapped mandatory entrance exams for admissions in favor of assessing applicants under a broader set of criteria, in part because disadvantaged students might not have the resources to prepare as well for standardized tests.

The ABA’s deliberations come as the Supreme Court is preparing to consider whether to eliminate the use of race as a factor in college admissions.

David Yellen, the departing CEO of the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, said a high-court ruling making all race-based admissions decisions unconstitutional would give schools an incentive to avoid testing requirements.

“It’s known beyond any dispute that some groups are disadvantaged by standardized tests,” said Mr. Yellen, the incoming dean of the University of Miami School of Law. “A test requirement combined with a ban on race-conscious admissions could be disastrous to having more diverse student bodies.”

Write to Deanna Paul at deanna.paul@wsj.com

Fun Fact: Kelley Teste (lolz) was Dean at UWLS for a tim before heading off to LSAT HQ. She was also at Seattle U for a long tim.

I have a pretty good idea, actually a very clear idea, about who on this board would and would not do well on the LSAT.

It is a good measure for predicting LS success. I know of not one single person who did well on the LSAT who did not also do well in LS. Of course, there are exceptions, and grit and focus and "wanting it" can move the need in LS. It's not physics, so I'm not sure how much innate ability plays a role. If you've lived your life reading ... a lot and have good critical thinking habits, the LSAT is yours for the taking. If your tendency is, instead, to start with the answer you want and work your back to that, and you are not aware that is your tendency, then the LSAT, or at least LS, is probably not for you. Same goes for ambiguity. If when you look out into the world and you see only binary, then for the love of God avoid the entire area like the plague.

Kaepsknee

Oregon hasn’t required anyone pass any type of Bar test since 2020.

It kind of explains why @HHusky has been so salty the last couple of years.

H had to earn his.


And after 3 times, He finally got it done.