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.
The Obamas gave up their licenses to practice when they got high up enough in politics. You have to pay money and take refresher courses to keep your license current. If they had literally lost their licenses, we would have heard about why by now.
Since they lost their license in Rat run Illinois, I doubt we would hear!
Insanity for the negro
I did not seems the law school that year was doing a womyn preference. One of them in fact was pocohantas.
Right after finding out I was doing a background investigation on an attorney for JAG. During the interview of best criminal law attorney in state he asked if I was permanent army or was I getting out. Told him I had planned on law school but was declined. He inquired about my boards and GPA. Then asked why not Harvard. I said out of my price range. He countered you should apply as you know the head of the scholarship committee. I said no I don’t and he said you are looking at him. We are looking for qualified vets. I am a reserve JAG colonel. I guarantee you get admitted with a scholarship. Stupidly I declined as living in in mass to expensive.
When I mentioned this to my dad he had a two word affirmation of my decision: you dummy.
LOL. Seriously...
You all put so much emphasis on these few tests (SAT, LSAT, etc.).
What makes you all think those tests can't be dumbed down?
I don’t think the Obamas gave up their license they were pulled.
If they had literally lost their licenses, we would have heard about why by now.
Do the check
ABA and Commie blue states already plan to dumb down the bar exams down to around what looks to be the 6th grade level for certain demographics... there was a thread on here a few weeks ago that mentioned that buried in the linked story, I believe.
Sounds like the CPA requirements
That IS the logical next step.
Once the elimination of the LSAT allows large numbers of unqualified blacks in, law school professors will be under immense pressure to pass them through to graduation.
Once large numbers of black law school graduates flunk the bar exam, the bar will be deemed a racist tool of white supremacy.
The LSAT evaluates your capacity to think logically, to think critically and to think out of the box. It really does not involve knowledge of the law at all. However, today, kids are not being taught critical thinking at any level of education. They are indoctrinated by the fascist left instead to listen and accept whatever the tyrants in charge say they have to. Hence, the movement to lose the LSAT because they cannot score decently or at all on the test
More stupid lawyers coming right up!
(To chase after the more stupid doctors and engineers and...)
In an environment where a professor who gives a bad grade to a black student risks professional "consequences".
Well, Harvard might have done a number on you.
For the record, I was always a big proponent of testing, specifically the SAT and ACT, even arguing with a college admissions officer once. I still think colleges should award scholarships and grant admission to their honors programs based on those test scores, even if a student has no official GPA.
But, while students who score high on the SAT do well in college, top students don’t always score high on the SAT and still do well in college. You have to be smart to score high on the SAT, but not all smart students score high on it.
And now, ever since the story about the college admissions scandal broke, we all know how some people are able to cheat on the SAT. One way was through special testing accommodations for people with “ADHD.”
All of the above could apply to the LSAT, too.
Professors do hand out F’s to any student who fails a course, especially in STEM courses. If you’re failing, you’re failing, but most students drop or withdraw if they’re not doing well.
In courses that involve mostly writing, the grade might be more subjective. Some professors are tough on papers, and others are easy. Since lawyers must craft an argument in writing, and they don’t need STEM degrees for law school, some might get into law school with an inflated GPA. But, that would be true for any student of any background.
What would happen with a professor who flunked a much higher proportion of his black students than white?
Success is a combination of intelligence and willingness to strive. If you are smart but lazy, then you will not do well.
If you are unintelligent AND lazy, then you will definitely not do well.
What would people here say if a professor flunked a much higher proportion of his white students than black or Hispanic? Or flunked more Asian students than anyone else?
They might claim bias. Well, the other groups might do the same when it happens the other way.
For STEM courses, no one really has a good argument. You either pass the tests or you don’t.
OTOH, for courses heavy in writing, professors sometimes show bias, especially on politics. If you agree with them, you might get a better grade.
But, most students drop their courses when they’re not doing well. They don’t get an F if the course never shows up on their transcript.
The topic here is what happens when large numbers of unqualified students of a certain demographic are admitted.
My point is that if Affirmative Action results in a professor having a significant number of unprepared and unqualified black students, with the result that a very disproportionate number of them either drop the class or flunk, then that leaves the professor open to racism accusations. Regardless of how ridiculous the charges might objectively be.
A university CANNOT see a large percentage of its black students drop out. To prevent that, they WILL put pressure on professors to either give enough help to the blacks to pass, or fudge the grades of the black students.
You wrote: "A university CANNOT see a large percentage of its black students drop out."
Last I read, the majority of black students already drop out for one reason or another. It doesn't mean they weren't doing well. I am not black, and I never finished college because I could no longer afford to attend. We're all individuals. My college record represents only my performance, not my group's performance. The Left sees people as groups. We're supposed to see people as individuals.
The reason I oppose racial check-boxes in college admissions is that (1) every student should be viewed as an individual, not as part of a group, and (2) "quotas" perpetuate negative and condescending stereotypes as if some groups of people (race or sex) need special help (which is not true).
But, because higher education is heavily subsidized with the taxes we pay, people argue over who gets admitted to which college, and every group believes some other group is receiving preferential treatment. The same is true at the high school level. People are forced to pay for public schools with their taxes, so they argue over who gets into the "better" schools. These arguments will always exist, as long as taxpayers are forced to fund education. That's the real crux of the issue here.
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.