I understand the concern, but it seems to me that there is a persistent conflation of two somewhat separate issues about this development. What is being reported is that schools won’t have to use the LSAT for placement, but what is being inferred is that schools will lower their standards for entry. However, these two issues aren’t necessarily related. For example, if a store says that they no longer accept cash, it doesn’t mean that their goods will cost less. If schools wanted to lower their standards for entry, they would probably have to accept more students instead of just the top students. Instead, these schools may start searching for different ways to determine the top students. Again, I understand the concern. It certainly may be that this will result in a lowering of standards (however we are defining those), but I just want to suggest that is far from certain.
I just love it when foolish liberals run off at the mouth (or keyboard) when they know nothing about what they are talking about or to. Unlike limousine libbies I actually went to one of the first integrated middle and high schools in Orange County. I lived integration, I don’t just opine about it 50 years later making a fool of myself in the process. You could ask all my teammates in middle or high school if they thought if I was racist and favored segregation, but quite honestly you probably wouldn’t go near the places that we still meet up with each other at today. I’m also pretty sure that they would have little to no use for your sanctimonious bullshit, just as I do. So why don’t you go thank god for sparing you from one of the other perceived grievances in your miserable life. I bet if you try hard enough you you might even find a wee little bit of happiness.
A good day? You can give me an hour alone in a bank Pay all my tickets, wipe the slate blank You could buy me a car, fillip the tank Tell me a boat full of lawyers just sank But it ain’t nothin but a woman….. Robert Cray
When I see stuff like this I almost always think of the 1st sentence of the Post-modern masterpiece, Lost in the Funhouse: For whom is the funhouse fun? wrt the issue at hand, Who is this policy for?
The LSAT is a stupid test. Some of the top law schools stopped requiring it years ago. This article is from 2017: Harvard Law School will no longer require the LSAT for admission How has Harvard survived?!?!?!?!?!
One of the things I love about my current job is that it's low volume. You pose a slippery slope that is essentially ignorant of current trends. Those garbage for-profit law schools already proliferated while schools required the LSAT. The LSAT did nothing to stop that from happening. Those garbage law schools have basically died out. The trend in the law school world right now is contraction. There have been a lot more law schools shutting down than opening in recent years. If that trend reverses itself, it won't be because of the LSAT. It'll be because of demand. Florida Coastal School of Law loses bid to stay afloat | firstcoastnews.com Indiana Tech will shut down law school Valparaiso Law School will close following unsuccessful attempt to transfer to Middle Tennessee State University Arizona Summit Law School details plans to close its doors Charlotte School of Law announces closure Whittier Law School is closing, due in part to low student achievement Concordia law school in Boise to close | ktvb.com. Savannah Law School Is Closing After Seven Years - Nationaljurist I doubt it. One reason why we're seeing law schools pull out of the U.S. News rankings and no longer requiring the LSAT is because of Republican SCOTUS's plan to nuke affirmative action.
For some reason, I tend to trust Harvard Law on this more than I do those who predict this would hasten the fall of western civilization
Well, to be fair, they’ve simply started accepting scores from the more readily available GRE’s, which still give them some common view as to the relative scores of students on a standardized test. It’s not like they jettisoned all standardized testing whatsoever from admissions requirement's, which is seemingly what the ABA may advocate.
You bring up an interesting thought and one that has not been good for many companies. Harvard is somewhat of a monopoly. Almost all top law candidates will have Harvard on their list. This is somewhat similar to Google and Apple wrt to business practices. Or Alabama wrt to football. Harvard, Google, and Apple, being Harvard, Google, and Apple can operate differently than most of the rest. They are mostly monopolies in that top level demand will move to them. Harvard can afford to use other available testing and data as they can fill their capacity and not even get close to saturating demand, so they will easily identify the top. Most of the other schools are fighting over the 90% of the pool that is not at the top. Many companies have tried to copy Apple and Google in terms of compensation, benefits, and work conditions. A company cannot copy and operate like a monopoly company and expect to survive. Many of those who tried to, have had to back off and go in different directions. But back to your point, Harvard and probably a few others can play by a different set of rules and still do just fine. They will have plenty of ways to nail down that top tier.
TBH, I don't recall. But, in almost 30 years of practicing law I have never had to determine the order of 5 people standing in line for a movie; who was wearing a hat and who was standing next to Susan...
The top schools will always be highly competitive for entrance Ead highly competitive for rankings. There will always be a means to separate the upper-intellectual crust from the others. If it is not a common test score, like the LSAT,it will be the GRE. If it’s not the GRE, it will be something else,such as balancing educational rigor. It will turn to weighing writing essays more extensively, and looking at community service and work history. Schools will always fight for talent, and talent will always strive for institutions that allow further distinguishing factors to allow the talent to have the best career opportunities. There is no equality in learning, there is no equality in achievement, and there is no equality in opportunity.
