Posted on 10/12/2022 6:55:54 AM PDT by karpov
The legal industry, and the law academy in particular, are in a high state of contention concerning one of their most protected traditions: the Law School Admission Test, or LSAT. The American Bar Association (ABA) that regulates our law-school industry is thinking of doing away with it. This exam is among the most heavily weighted student-applicant ranking methods for law schools and among the most feared and coveted competitive hurdles for law-school aspirants.
It is irrelevant.
Well, at least to those factions that want it removed as a requirement. They include a number of special interests, mostly in government, that seek to promote broad personal- and group-identity objectives. The LSAT (or any standardized test for that matter) is considered inherently biased, thereby making it a target of discrimination claims. This isn’t a bad issue to raise in general, as the test itself is rather old. More recent advances in learning theories, and even in neurobiology and brain science, can provide important new parameters of intelligence that may not be captured by standardized tests. Some biological science researchers, on the other hand, have come out fully in favor of standardized testing and explain why. This raises the obvious question as to whether the LSAT is actually outdated or if new applicants are merely going to be given a “pass” based on political criteria. (Alternately, for commercial reasons, the LSAT may, in the future, be merely a “check the box” formality, to accommodate current progressive viewpoints and to assuage law school deans.)
(Excerpt) Read more at jamesgmartin.center ...
I was lamenting with an attorney that I had been rejected for Rutgers Law School in 71 because they had a woman priority admittance policy that year. The attorney asked what my LSAT was to which I told him 640. He further inquired about my undergraduate grades and pointed out with those you should consider Harvard. I laughed and said I was going to Rutgers as I could afford that. He responded you know the chairman of the Harvard Scholarship Committee; you are looking at him. I am also a JAG reserve Colonel and we want to encourage vets to attend. I guarantee you apply you will be admitted with a scholarship.
He noted the LSAT was the best predictor of success at law school and he encouraged me to take advantage of it.
This was in 71. Today it would only not happen, it would be ostracized.
Wait... something seems wrong...
The LSAT is a way to weed out those that don’t have what it takes to succeed in law school.
Without it, many people would rack up student loans and then fail out without graduating and then want Democrats to pay for it!
And for the record, I went to Rutgers because Harvard would have laughed at me.
I’ve noted over the past year, with a few attempts, some difficulty in pinning down the acronym, if any.
Some say there is none.
Some say it is ‘British Accreditation Registry’.
Some say it is ‘British Accreditation Regency’.
Barrister, I believe, but I could be wrong.
We all know why there is a big push to do away with it. It is an objective measurement. That doesn’t suit the “diversity” agenda.
If I were a college I’d try to make sure the incoming material (students) had the right stuff for a career in law, such that I could be reassured I could turn them into graduates. If students come in almost as randomly as names in a phone book, that’s potentially a lot of dropouts and a waste of my resources; meanwhile my standing and accreditation are on the line. No?
Oh wait. This is about diversity. Never mind!
Close down the law school and open an adult day care.
So did you go to Harvard?
Interesting.
Maybe it’s just a reference to what’s now called a hand rail or banister on top of balusters dividing areas in a courtroom?
Yep, some say it is just the wooden ‘bar’ separating Admiralty/Maritime Law jurisdiction from Common Law (law of the land). (see Jordon Maxwell’s on-point explanations)
Precisely
“‘Bar’ was the Brit practice of separating courts into parts for lower level folks versus areas for actual barristers (lawyers).”
Actually, something we should use here. Ya don’t need to pass the Bar exam for pushing some papers.
Also, read John Hasnas on the “The Myth of the Rule of Law”.
It’s those that rule on the law that make the law.
Burn it all down.
Exactly. The LSAT , prepping for it as well as taking it, showed me that I was on the right track. I could think like a lawyer, and I might actually enjoy that career. It was encouraging.
As long as Law Schools get their money, they don’t care.
“Go away. ‘Batin’!”
Minorities have problems with the test so the test is the problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.