By: Phoebe A. Haddon and Deborah W. Post
Abstract by: Elise Jaffe
Developed as a predictor of an individual’s law school success,
the Law School Admissions Test (the “LSAT”) has become a widely
used instrument in the law school admissions process. However, half
a century after its creation, experience with the LSAT has revealed
unanticipated misuses and abuses of the test scores. These
unforeseen consequences create unfair barriers to legal education
for those individuals who are poor LSAT performers, but who
otherwise possess the qualities and skills that would make them
fine attorneys.
Numerous problems are associated with over-reliance on LSAT
scores. The LSAT manifests a narrow definition of “merit,” a
definition that reflects aptitude rather than achievement. In
addition, reliance on the LSAT emphasizes narrow academic skills
while undervaluing other important lawyering skills and core values
of the profession, including motivation, perseverance,
interpersonal skills, problem-solving skills, oral communication
and listening skills, and empathy for clients. More importantly,
the test has been shown to have less predictive accuracy for women
and minorities, so heavy dependence on LSAT scores by law school
admissions offices disproportionately disadvantages those
groups.
Despite acknowledged problems with reliance upon the exam,
admissions professionals in law schools face significant pressure
to emphasize the LSAT. They are pressured by deans and faculty
members who frequently believe higher scores correspond to
higherachieving students. Deans and faculty, in their turn, are
pressured by external forces, like the American Bar Association
accreditation process, selectivity rankings in U.S. News &
World Report, and by alumni and trustees who are interested in
seeing their school’s reputation gain a competitive edge over other
law schools.
The authors call for legal institutions to reject the notion
that standardized test scores equate with merit. The authors also
identify three alternative approaches for reform: (1) reform of the
LSAT itself, by which alternative “social competence” criteria
would be incorporated into the exam; (2) adoption of a broader
definition of merit, and evaluation of students in the law school
admissions process on a “whole file” review basis; (3) abandonment
of the LSAT as a requirement for law school admission.