Posted on 03/11/2009 6:41:22 AM PDT by reaganaut1
Just what makes a good lawyer?
In trying to answer that question, professors at the University of California, Berkeley, have come up with a test that they say is better at predicting success in the field than the widely used Law School Admission Test.
The LSAT, as the half-day exam is known, does not claim to predict much beyond a students performance in law school. But critics contend that it does not evaluate how good a lawyer someone will be and tests for the wrong things. They also say it keeps many black and Hispanic students who tend to have lower scores out of the legal profession.
Marjorie M. Shultz, a law professor who retired last year from Berkeley and is one of the studys authors, said she began to examine the issue after California voters approved Proposition 209, which banned consideration of race in admissions.
Proposition 209 and the reduced numbers of minority admits prompted me to think hard about what constitutes merit for purposes of law school admission, and to decide LSAT was much too narrow, as well as having big adverse impact, Professor Shultz said.
The Law School Admissions Council, which administers the LSAT, helped finance Professor Shultzs research, which has not appeared in any scholarly journals. Nonetheless, Wendy Margolis, a council spokeswoman, defended the LSAT, saying that how a student does in law school has a great deal to do with ultimate success as a lawyer.
Ms. Margolis added, We think it would be difficult to predict success as a lawyer prior to law school.
But that is exactly what Professor Shultz and Prof. Sheldon Zedeck, a colleague in the universitys psychology department, wanted to do.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Now, opening the bar to a much wider pool of applicants will increase the supply of lawyers, resulting in a deflationary effect on their fees. Once fees drop AND law school is not the only route to practice law, law schools will close. Between the closure of law schools and the decrease in remuneration for lawyers, the supply will maintain equilibrium, thus resulting in a greater number of lawyers, but at much lower cost.
IMHO, the only reason it seems like there are too many lawyers today is because they have taken over government and vote themselves benefits, by creating new regulatory schemes and opposing tort reforms. These things create demand for lawyers. If we can win the battle against these liberal forces and put a stop to their schemes, the demand will decrease, and we'll end up with BOTH fewer lawyers and cheaper lawyers. Good thing, no?
Thanks for the input. Probably right. Adversity hones skills and character.
Still, I wish there were another way.
Maybe talk her into a new field!
Kidding, sort of. :)
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.