Research published by the Legal Services Board by Chris Dewberry brings into sharper relief the value of aptitude tests and their application to the legal professions. For me, it suggests that the value of aptitude tests is most likely to be felt at the entry into university stage (and possibly not there) but that ensuring that they operate fairly poses a major challenge. The uses proposed by the Bar Standards Board and being investigated by the Law Society face significant problems (see also here, here, here, here and here for previous posts and links to Sutton Trust work in particular).
The report begins with a point which gives me the opportunity to stoop low into the gutter of smutty blog titles. That is the report shows that, for the most part, we should forget about aptitude tests and focus on measures of cognitive ability. The psychologists label this ‘g’, and G is a powerful thing. It exists and those tests that find it can predict degree performance (and so it is fair to surmise LPC or BPTC performance) or job performance as well as, or better than, the other common techniques. So far, so good for proponents of aptitude tests.
