[blindlaw] ABA panel considering making the LSAT optional

[Joe Orozco]

This is an interesting proposition.  I guess I can't rule out the value of
the LSAT without questioning the value of other standardized exams.  The
problem is that the LSAT tests aptitude, whereas exams like the MCAT test
working knowledge.  Is the same true of the GMAT?  Of course, you can't
exactly test knowledge for the LSAT, because the idea is that anyone from
any field could theoretically enter and in excel in law school.  There's a
law school in Massachusetts that instead of using the LSAT, uses its own
exam to evaluate a student's preparedness for their curriculum.  I thought
it was an interesting model and briefly considered applying before I took a
step back from law in order to fully explore my abilities at marketing.  I
hope that the proposition at least gives schools something to think about.

Best,

Joe

"Hard work spotlights the character of people: some turn up their sleeves,
some turn up their noses, and some don't turn up at all."--Sam Ewing 

-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org 
[mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of ckrugman at sbcglobal.net
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 8:53 AM
To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
Subject: [blindlaw] ABA panel considering making the LSAT optional

ABA panel considering making the LSAT optional
Karen Sloan
January 12, 2011


The Law School Admissions Test is a rite of passage for 
aspiring lawyers, but could go from mandatory to voluntary 
under proposed changes to the American Bar Association's law 
school accreditation standards.

The committee reviewing the standards is leaning toward 
dropping the rule that law schools require J.D. applicants to 
take a "valid and reliable admission test," chairman Donald 
Polden, dean of Santa Clara University School of Law, said on Wednesday.

"A substantial portion of the committee believes that provision 
should be repealed," said Polden, noting that about 10 law 
schools already have waivers from the ABA allowing them to 
admit some students who haven't taken the LSAT.

Much of the committee's LSAT debate has focused on the proper 
role of the ABA in the regulation of law school admissions, 
said Loyola University Chicago School of Law Dean David Yellen, 
who sits on the standards review committee.

"I think an accrediting body ought to ensure that law schools 
are producing students who can enter the practice," he said, 
noting that he personally is on the fence about the LSAT 
requirement. "Is taking a standardized test the only way to 
determine if someone should be able to go to law school? 
Schools ought to be able to decide how they want to admit students."

Yellen said committee members have also questioned whether the 
ABA should be making rules that financially benefit the Law 
School Admission Council-the organization that administers the LSAT.

"It's a wealthy institution," Yellen said. "So many people take 
the LSAT. Why is the ABA ensuring its future success?"

The admission council has not taken a position on the 
committee's proposal, said spokeswomen Wendy Margolis, but 
council President Daniel Bernstine did address the committee 
during a meeting last year. "It would be inappropriate and 
premature of us to comment before a decision has been made by 
the committee," Margolis said.Dropping the LSAT requirement 
would be unlikely to prompt many schools to abandon the test. 
Both Polden and Yellen believe that most schools would continue 
to require the LSAT, in part because it is the most reliable 
way to measure applicants against each other and make 
merit-based financial aid decisions.

"I think most schools would keep it," Yellen said. "It gives 
you an indication of how prepared people are for law school. On 
the other side, getting rid of the test would be yet another 
way for law schools to game the U.S. News rankings, but I don't 
think the ABA should take U.S. News into account when making 
these decisions."

The committee is still in the relatively early stages of 
discussing the LSAT. It is closer to finalizing its 
recommendations in several other areas, including so-called 
"student learning outcomes." Law schools would be evaluated 
based on what students learn rather than input measures, such 
as the size of law libraries or faculty-to-student ratios. That 
matter was discussed during a two-day committee meeting last weekend.

The learning outcomes standards should be ready for 
presentation to the ABA's Council on Legal Education and 
Admissions to the Bar in the summer, Polden said. That council 
must approve all changes to the accreditation standards.

The committee is still debating other controversial topics, 
including security of position and tenure for faculty and law 
school governance.

The draft standards would require law schools to define their 
educational mission and learning goals for graduating 
students-a significant departure from the existing standards, 
which rely on more easily quantifiable measures such as bar 
passage rates. The draft would require schools to develop 
assessment methods that would "provide meaningful feedback to 
students." The schools would assess whether students are 
attaining the stated educational goals, although the proposal 
does not specifically define what those goals should be or how 
they should be measured.

"We are trying to make sure that as we move into this very 
different way of evaluating schools by assessing student 
learning outcomes, that we give them a lot of flexibility," 
Polden said. "The provision is quite general, but the idea is 
for schools to have leeway."

Too much leeway could be a problem, said Ian Weinstein, the 
associate dean for clinical programs at Fordham University 
School of Law and the president of the Clinical Legal Education 
Association. The association has advocated for stronger, more 
detailed standards for the learning outcomes of individual 
students. The committee draft places more focus on the 
effectiveness of the law school as a whole, rather than on 
individual students, he said.

"The current version gives schools a lot of room to define 
mission and outcomes," Weinstein said. The clinical association 
"has expressed real concern about that all along. In our view, 
we'd like those learning outcomes to be considerably more specific."

Weinstein believes it would be imprudent to move too far from 
the existing measures such as faculty-to-student ratios if the 
new standards don't create strong enough output requirements.

One change the association supports is beefing up the existing 
requirement that all students take at least one externship, 
clinic or simulation course.

The committee is still working on the standards that pertain to 
tenure and security of position, but members largely agree that 
tenure should be encouraged if not required by the ABA, Polden 
said. The committee has interpreted the existing accreditation 
standards to mean that tenure is not a requirement, although 
many legal academics disagree with that interpretation.

The committee is struggling with changes to law school 
governance standards, Polden said. It is considering a new 
standard that law schools require full-time faculty members to 
participate in governance and decision-making. This would help 
to eliminate the exclusion of some clinical, legal writing and 
other non-tenure track positions from hiring decisions and 
other governance issues, he said.

The committee will hold a public hearing on all of these 
proposals during its next meeting April 2 in Chicago. Those 
proposals are posted on the ABA's Web site. Individuals and 
groups wishing to comment will be asked to register ahead of 
time to speak during the three-hour public comment session, Polden said.

Karen Sloan can be contacted at ksloan at alm.com.


http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticlePrinterFriendlyNLJ.jsp?id=1
202477851996
_______________________________________________
blindlaw mailing list
blindlaw at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account 
info for blindlaw:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/jsoroz
co%40gmail.com