[blindlaw] ABA panel considering making the LSAT optional

Thu Jan 13 17:35:13 UTC 2011

>From the standpoint of the reasonable accommodation issues associated with
the administration of the LSAT test, the NFB should urge that law schools
have the flexibility to waive the test for applicants who are otherwise
qualified for admission. 

A long time ago when I applied to law school, no one had any idea about how
to administer the LSAT to a totally blind person. The three law schools to
which I applied admitted me without the LSAT base don my undergraduate
grades.  There is no good reason why that can't happen today.

Respectfully,

Russell J. Thomas, Jr.

Law Office of Russell J. Thomas, Jr.

4121 Westerly Place, Suite 101

Newport Beach, California 92660                             

T: (949) 752-0101                             

F: (949) 257-4756

M: (949) 466-7238

www.emplmnattorney.com

Follow me on Twitter:  EmplmntAttorney

PLEASE NOTE MY NEW EMAIL ADDRESS, EFF. 6/1/2010:
RTHOMAS at EMPLMNTATTORNEY.COM 

-----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 5:53 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repealed," said Polden, noting that about 10 law schools already have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=1202477851996
_______________________________________________
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/rthomas%40emplmnta
ttorney.com