[blindlaw] ABA panel considering making the LSAT optional

Thu Jan 13 23:14:18 UTC 2011

Won't some law schools waive it?
Steve
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe Orozco" <jsorozco at gmail.com>
To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] ABA panel considering making the LSAT optional


> 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 should be repealed," said Polden, noting that about 10 law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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/stevep.deeley%40insightbb.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3375 - Release Date: 01/12/11 
02:38:00
-------------- next part --------------

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3377 - Release Date: 01/13/11 02:34:00