Posted on 01/16/2023 5:49:26 PM PST by grundle
Fordham School of Law’s Office of Admissions will assess whether or not to maintain the test requirement following the decision
The American Bar Association (ABA) voted to eliminate the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT) as an admissions requirement for law schools across the country on Nov. 18. If the ABA’s House of Delegates approves this motion law schools will be able to go test-optional as soon as fall 2025.
The recent decision comes after a longstanding debate on how the LSAT requirement affects the admittance of a diverse body of students into law schools and legal professions. Critics of the LSAT requirement claim that it serves as a barrier of entry for underprivileged students, while supporters of the exam argue that it acts as an equalizing factor for students of all socioeconomic backgrounds to distinguish themselves in law school admissions.
In a letter written to the ABA against the decision, deans of various law schools, such as Notre Dame, the University of Michigan and the University of Pennsylvania argued that removal of the test requirement would cause law school admissions to place a heavier emphasis on other factors, such as GPA and reputation of undergraduate institutions, that would be “infused with bias.”
Stephen Brown, assistant dean of enrollment at Fordham School of Law, said that, in addition to the LSAT, Fordham Law currently looks at a variety of factors in determining if an applicant will be admitted into its program, including a personal statement, undergraduate GPA, resume and work experience, school and community involvement, and letters of recommendation, among other criteria.
Brown highlighted the importance of looking beyond only LSAT scores and GPA.
“We look to academic success, engagement and leadership, curiosity, perseverance, experiences and many other factors,” Brown said. “That is why we ask for information that is more than just numbers – our students and alumni are more than just numbers.”
Following the ABA’s vote, Brown clarified that the Office of Admissions at Fordham Law will assess whether or not to maintain the test requirement. He explained that the postponement of the implementation for more than two admission cycles will allow the office to examine any changes they might make.
“We will be evaluating whether to retain an LSAT requirement and, if not, how we will set our application review to assure that we continue to admit students who will be successful and contribute to both the community at Fordham Law and the legal profession,” Brown said.
Patrick Cucurullo, Fordham School of Law ’23, took the LSAT in the summer of 2019 and views the exam as an expected component of the admissions process.
“Like most law students, I hated taking the LSAT,” Cucurullo said. “I think it’s fair to say most of us view it as something we just had to endure, like one more hoop to jump through.”
As a first-generation college and law student in his family Cucurullo appreciated the opportunity the LSAT provided in testing his ability equally.
“I think I tend to be a little more willing to defend the LSAT than the average law student because I don’t come from a background that would give me any advantages going into law school,” he said.
Cucurullo expressed that he believes the test works as intended in accurately measuring what is required of students in law school. He also theorized that LSAT scores and GPA correlate as he scored around the median on the LSAT for his incoming class and now similarly ranks on GPA. Additionally, Cucurullo commented on the privatized nature of the LSAT ecosystem as being inequitable.
Cucurullo expressed that the elimination of the LSAT requirement is a positive, if not predictable, change, with law schools following the actions of undergraduate colleges.
“Undergraduate schools are already treating the SAT and ACT as optional, and the ‘big’ law schools have been ignoring the LSAT for a while now. I would favor a whole student approach to admissions, so deemphasizing the LSAT is a step in that direction,” he said. “I also think that during the review, schools have to seriously account for the uneven playing field among applicants.”
Pre-law undergraduate students at Fordham also weighed in with their opinions on the recent vote.
Kennedi Hutchins, Fordham College at Lincoln Center (FCLC) ’25, expressed her approval for the vote and stated that the LSAT acts as a roadblock to building diverse legal professions for several reasons, including the lack of access to costly tutors and platforms to prepare for the exam.
She explained that the LSAT is “one of the hardest standardized tests that require time, money, and dedication that some people might not have the privilege to give.”
Hutchins added that this test-optional change might have a side effect similar to that of when the SAT was waived for some undergraduate schools due to COVID-19.
“The number of applications would increase resulting in lower acceptance rates,” she said. “This may have a positive effect on the legal field, but a negative effect on the applicant.”
Another student, Annette Salas, FCLC ’26, commented on the accessibility issues associated with the LSAT. She expressed that limited diversity in law schools and legal professions had less to do with the LSAT itself and more to do with the lack of resources given to minority undergraduate students.
“If more LSAT prep courses and other resources were more accessible, then perhaps the LSAT wouldn’t be such an issue regarding the diversity gap in admissions,” she said.
Salas also noted that she had mixed feelings about the vote and was unsure as to whether or not the elimination of the LSAT was a positive or negative change.
“Personally, I liked the idea of the LSAT because it didn’t put all this pressure only on your grades and resume,” she said. “However, I also see the perspective of taking away the LSAT so admissions can focus on other factors that may offer a more holistic perspective of a student’s qualifications.”
Yvette Panaiotov, FCLC ’24 and head of the Pre-Law Society at Fordham Lincoln Center, discussed the intricacies of the LSAT in comparison to other standardized tests, commending it as a valuable equalizing tool for assessing reasoning and thinking styles over memorization skills. She also expressed concern about law schools placing too much emphasis on GPA as an alternative should the test be eliminated as a requirement.
“Despite its emphasis on overlooking education disparities, it struggles to account for differences in access,” Panaiotov said. “As such, I feel that the LSAT would be most valuable as a supplement rather than a determinant in law school applications.”
Panaiotov finds that a more holistic review of applicants would benefit the admissions process.
In the past, the Pre-Law Society has dedicated most of their events to test prep for the LSAT. Panaiotov commented on how plans for the club will proceed following the vote.
“This decision will certainly create space for us to focus on more areas of law school applications,” she said. “However, we will continue to provide LSAT guidance and instruction for students who wish to supplement their law school applications with their LSAT scores, both before and after the implementation of this decision in 2025.”
Following the ABA council’s approval, the final decision regarding the removal of the LSAT requirement rests upon the judgement of the House of Delegates, which will be determined in February 2023.
Anyone who thinks you need to go to law school to learn the law, doesn’t know much about the law.
The sole purpose of law school is to limit the supply of lawyers and allow the practitions to charge confiscatory rates for work anyone with slightly high than average intelligence can learn on their own.
Do you know they call a lawyer who got Ds in law school? Your Honor.
Nor do I. President Trump tried. You see where it got him.
Sad but true...
I guess liberals are saying that some students are supremier than others
This is anecdotal, but the few programmers I worked with who had degrees from MIT couldn't tell their serial port from a hole in the ground.
Already, in America, twice as many graduate from law school and take the various bar exams as there are jobs for these new lawyers.
All public law schools should be closed indefinitely. The number of lawyers in America has become a travesty.
Law schools are a scam. Law students spend a fortune on law school and most cannot get work as a lawyer when they graduate.
To be an accredited college, Bubba’s College (which I personally think is a fine name for a college) would be required to meet the same criteria as other colleges, so its courses must be the same level.
Which part was funny? That the tests are equalizers?
Translation: no White male will ever get into 90% of the law schools in this country founded by their ancestors.
Sad.
When looking for an attorney, I suggest you discard those younger than 50 years old. You have a better chance then of finding one that is competent to represent you no matter the issue.
We all know what this is. Objective measurements and standards make it difficult to racially discriminate the way the wokeratti would like to. So, get rid of all objective standards so you can racially gerrymander to your hearts’ content.
There are already enough morons with law licenses with the LSAT. How are you going to winnow the numbers down? Or can just just any old buddy be a lawyer?
I don’t even remember what mine was. All I know is my law school took my lsat score and my gpa and if it was above a certain line you got in. If it was below you did not.
The dumbing down of America and you are all in. LOL.
What is worse? A dumb lawyer or a dumb engineer that approved the bridge you drive over daily?
“What is worse? A dumb lawyer or a dumb engineer that approved the bridge you drive over daily?”
When I get ready to cross the bridge, I’d like to know the bridge engineer was competent. If I was being prosecuted by a corrupt FBI who wanted to imprison me for life, I’d like to know my defense counsel was competent.
How is the LSAT different from your GPA? Both measure the knowledge you acquire from your classes/other sources.
LSAT is fully based in equality. Everyone is taking the same test. Knowledge measurement is mostly objective.
GPA has no equal basis. One school can have radically different teachers from another, different classes taken - a 3.0 in a very difficult school is much more impressive than a 4.2 in the easy schools. Hell, the SAME SCHOOL can have radically different knowledge coming out of the SAME CLASS, varying between different professors! How do you know how much those professors curved their classes? I’ve had a couple that give a 10+ point curve at the end because so many kids aren’t passing at the end of the semester. How does that show they have the knowledge the class is supposed to impart?
She and Barack lost their license as did both Clinton’s
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.