September 13, 2005
Queens, N.Y. -- On September 7, 2005, The Ronald H. Brown Center
for Civil Rights and Economic Development of St. John’s University
School of Law held a conference entitled: “The LSAT, U.S. News
& World Report, and Minority Admissions.” The conference
brought together academics, admissions’ personnel, and leading
gatekeepers to the legal profession. The conference participants
examined the impact of the ranking-frenzied atmosphere created by
U.S. News & World Report on Black and Latino/a enrollments.
Despite the presence and legality of affirmative action
programs, Black enrollment in law schools peaked in 1994 and has
declined since then. Professor John Nussbaumer of Thomas Cooley Law
School prepared a recent study for the Law Professors’ Division of
the National Bar Association (“NBA”), which showed a strong
correlation between law schools raising their minimum LSAT scores
and declining African American enrollment. The study showed that,
between 2002-2004, law schools in New York State, Florida,
Illinois, California, and Massachusetts increased their LSAT
scores, and Black enrollment plunged. Only three law schools in New
York State, which raise their LSAT scores during this period,
simultaneously increased their Black enrollment. Of these law
schools, St. John’s did the best by increasing minimum LSAT scores
by three points with a concomitant 5 percent increase in African
American enrollment during this period of time.
During her keynote speech, Professor Vernellia Randall of Dayton
Law School attributed the decline in Black and Latino/a admissions
to over-reliance on the LSAT in admissions. Citing her experience
as the Director of Academic Excellence at Dayton Law School,
Professor Randall advocated for well-designed academic support
programs. She said that students with low LSAT scores can graduate
from law school and pass the bar exam on the first try. Seattle Law
Professor Laurel C. Oates confirmed that in her experience,
students with low LSAT scores can improve their performance with
“purposeful reading.” Her study found that some students with low
law school grades may read the course materials solely for
informational purposes, which is insufficient to perform legal
analysis. However, Professor Oates noted that purposeful reading is
a skill that can be taught.
Robert Morse, Director of Data Research for U.S. News &
World Report, stated that “law school rankings are here to stay”
because they are useful for consumers. He stated that, although the
LSAT is a factor used in its rankings, U.S News “is not responsible
for the use of the LSAT in the admissions process” or its overall
importance in that decision; he noted that “law schools are the
ones that determine who is admitted.” Mr. Morse also discounted the
importance of the LSAT in law school rankings. He stated that “This
means in most cases, except at some points in the 150-160 LSAT
score area, one LSAT point upward will on average not change a
school’s overall score by one point and therefore will not change
its position in the rankings.”
Phil Shelton, the President of the Law School Admission Council
(“LSAC”), which designs the LSAT, acknowledged that “the LSAT was a
good, but not perfect measure of an applicant’s potential for
success in law school.” However, Mr. Shelton suggested that “law
schools should still perform holistic reviews of applicants for
admission.” Erica Moeser, President of the National Conference
of Bar Examiners, reiterated Mr. Shelton’s confidence in the LSAT
as an appropriate measure but declared “that diversity should
remain an important factor in admissions.”
Although the LSAT has some predictive value as to law school
performance, some panelists expressed concerns over its misuse.
Professor Randall believed that, given the fact that the LSAT is
not a perfect predictor of law school success, that over-reliance
on the LSAT could put law schools at risk to discrimination suits
by rejected black and Latino/a applicants. Mr. Shelton, in essence
agreed with Professor Randall, and stated that misuse of the LSAT
may put law schools at risk for discrimination suits. He
specifically stated that “the evidence is very clear that the test
has a disparate impact based on race, and if the test is used
contrary to LSAC guidelines that could provide a valid basis for
proving racial discrimination." Professor Donald Jones, the
Chair of the NBA Law Professors’ Division confirmed these concerns.
In analyzing a law school’s misuse of the LSAT, Professor Jones
stated that “practices that have a disparate impact shift the
burden of proof to the law schools and the LSAC to show a valid
educational purpose.” In challenging those law schools that misuse
the LSAT, Professor Jones declared "Let's test the test and make it
subject to validation in a court of law."
As a solution, Professor Randall advocated that the American Bar
Association adopt accreditation rules that would penalize law
schools that misuse the LSAT by automatically rejecting law school
applicants primarily on low LSAT scores.
Notwithstanding the misuse and overuse of the LSAT, other
ranking pressures may have an adverse effect on African and
Latino/a admissions. On a cautionary note, Indiana Professor
Jeffrey Stake predicted that, ”in order to increase their U.S News
ranks, law schools will next work to increase their median
undergraduate grade point averages (UGPAs)” of their incoming
students. He feared that “the combination of increased LSAT and
UGPA medians will have a devastating impact on minority
admissions."
In an upcoming issue, the St. John’s Law Review will publish
several of the papers presented at the conference.
Contact
Professor Leonard M. Baynes
Director, The Ronald H. Brown Center for Civil Rights and Economic
Development
St. John’s University School of Law
baynesl@stjohns.edu
(718) 990-6032