LSAT's Grip on Law Schools Loosens With ABA's Latest Move
An American Bar Association committee has recommended axing the accreditation standard mandating that schools use a standardized test in admissions.
April 16, 2018 at 03:06 PM
5 minute read
The American Bar Association's longstanding requirement that law schools use the LSAT in admissions looks to be on the way out.
An ABA committee on April 13 recommended axing the accreditation standard mandating that schools use a standardized test in admissions. That move would eliminate the LSAT's status as the only test specifically allowed by the ABA.
That change, should it be approved by the ABA's Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar and the ABA's House of Delegates later this year, would pave the way for schools nationwide to use the Graduate Record Exam (GRE) and other alternative tests. Thus far, 17 law schools are accepting or have said they soon will accept the GRE alongside the LSAT. But other campuses have been awaiting a decision from the ABA to clarify whether the GRE is allowed under its accreditation standards.
“I'm delighted by the result,” said Dan Rodriguez, dean of Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, who has been a vocal advocate of the GRE's use in law school admissions. “I and many others have been saying in recent months that the decision to let schools fundamentally have a choice about which test to use in considering applicants, and how to use that test, is best made by the law schools.”
It's unlikely that law schools will opt to admit students with no standardized test scores at all, even without a formal accreditation standard requiring the LSAT or another test. Under a proposal from the Standards Review Committee, the ABA would presume schools using no admissions test are out of compliance with the standards. The schools would then have to actively prove that they're not admitting students with little chance of graduating and passing the bar exam. Moreover, the modified interpretation of the ABA's admission standard would stipulate that schools use a “valid and reliable test,” but would not take any position on which tests fit that bill.
“The schools are still going to have to show that any test they use is valid and reliable, and the LSAT has been shown to be,” said Kellye Testy, the president of the Law School Admission Council. “It's opening the door for schools to think about alternatives, but the value of the test isn't just to the schools, but to the applicants.”
David Payne, vice president of Educational Test Service, which administers the GRE, said Monday that the change makes sense.
“It removes the burden of the ABA being the arbiter of what is a valid and reliable test, which seems appropriate,” Payne said.
GRE proponents had urged the ABA to eliminate the LSAT requirement and allow schools to use whatever test, or no test at all. Doing away with the LSAT requirement would enable law schools to experiment with new ways of admitting students and tap into new pools of potential applicants, according to GRE supporters.
On the opposite side of the issue, LSAT supporters argued that the exam is the gold standard in law school admissions and that it offers the best predictor to schools and applicants of the likelihood of success on campus. Prospective students deserve to have a good sense of whether or not they will be able to graduate and pass the bar exam before taking on debt, they argue.
The ABA on Thursday held a public hearing on a proposal to do away with the LSAT requirement, and many interested parties also submitted comments before the vote.
The committee's recommendation isn't the last word on the admissions test matter. That recommendation will go to the ABA's Council of the Section of Legal Education and could be voted on at its meeting next month. Any changes adopted by the council would then go before the ABA's House of Delegates for final approval, possibly as soon as August.
The accreditation rule at the heart of the debate—Standard 503—has been hotly debated since law schools began using the GRE in 2016. (The University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law pioneered using the GRE in 2016, and now 17 law schools accept or soon will accept the alternative exam, which is used by most graduate degree programs outside of law and medicine.)
The existing rule allows law schools to admit up to 10 percent of their entering class from among applicants who don't have an LSAT score as long as they meet certain criteria, such as being an undergraduate at the law school's home campus or enrolling in a joint degree program. The rule also allows schools to use an alternative test as long as they can prove that test is “valid and reliable,” in assessing law school performance.
Uncertainty over the ABA's position on the GRE has led some campuses to take a wait-and-see approach before allowing applicants to submit GRE scores.
“We have had schools that have already contacted us to say that they want to use the GRE, but were waiting for a final decision to come out,” Payne said. “I believe this is a win-win.”
➤➤ Want more reporting on trends in legal education? Sign up here for Ahead of the Curve by Karen Sloan, a new email briefing from Law.com. Each week, Karen examines the transformation of legal education, spotlights innovative programs and breaks down the latest law school news.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'A Regressive Institution': SDNY Judge Rakoff Delivers Pointed Remarks on SCOTUS in Recent Appearance
2 minute readGeorgia July Bar Exam Results: Highest Overall Passing Rate in 10 Years
Coalition of AGs Support Updates to ABA's Legal Education Diversity Standard
3 minute readBar Leader Promotes Intergenerational Links, But Elder Lawyers Should Know When 'It's Time to Stop'
Trending Stories
- 1Here’s What Litigators Want For Christmas
- 2Reported Refusal to Officiate Gay Wedding Prompts Review by NY Judicial Misconduct Watchdog
- 3Frozen-Potato Producers Face Profiteering Allegations in Surge of Antitrust Class Actions
- 4CooperSurgical Class Action Survives Motion to Dismiss
- 5Lawyers Weigh 'Right to Disconnect' During Remote Work
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250