The ABA regularly holds meetings to consider changes to its requirements for law schools. After all, law schools must meet certain requirements in order to be ABA-approved.
The ABA recently proposed allowing law schools to admit 10% of their students without taking the LSAT. That's right - if this proposal passes, you'd be able to get into an ABA-approved law school without having to take the LSAT at all.
Why would the ABA do this?
Maybe it has something to do with the low number of LSAT takers these days, even though that number increased slightly in February.
For those of you who can't stand the LSAT, this probably sounds too good to be true.
Well, it may be. First of all, keep in mind that this change may not become reality. If it does, though, you'd have to fall into one of two groups in order to get out of the LSAT requirement. You'd have to:
1. Be an undergrad at the same university as the law school you're applying to, or
2. Get another degree while you're in law school
So, these changes would only apply to an incredibly small number of people. Or they could have the effect of changing applicants' behavior. Maybe they'd incentivize you to go to law school at the same university where you do your undergrad. Or to go for multiple degrees simultaneously (and it's not easy to do anything else while you're in law school).
Neither is necessarily a good idea, but I'm guessing that some people really do want to avoid taking the LSAT that much.
There are a few other requirements, too. All are included below, in the actual text from the ABA document.
It's from the American Bar Association, Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, Interpretation 503-3, Explanation of Changes (PDF, page 4):
The ABA recently proposed allowing law schools to admit 10% of their students without taking the LSAT. That's right - if this proposal passes, you'd be able to get into an ABA-approved law school without having to take the LSAT at all.
Why would the ABA do this?
Maybe it has something to do with the low number of LSAT takers these days, even though that number increased slightly in February.
For those of you who can't stand the LSAT, this probably sounds too good to be true.
Well, it may be. First of all, keep in mind that this change may not become reality. If it does, though, you'd have to fall into one of two groups in order to get out of the LSAT requirement. You'd have to:
1. Be an undergrad at the same university as the law school you're applying to, or
2. Get another degree while you're in law school
So, these changes would only apply to an incredibly small number of people. Or they could have the effect of changing applicants' behavior. Maybe they'd incentivize you to go to law school at the same university where you do your undergrad. Or to go for multiple degrees simultaneously (and it's not easy to do anything else while you're in law school).
Neither is necessarily a good idea, but I'm guessing that some people really do want to avoid taking the LSAT that much.
There are a few other requirements, too. All are included below, in the actual text from the ABA document.
It's from the American Bar Association, Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, Interpretation 503-3, Explanation of Changes (PDF, page 4):
The proposed Interpretation provides that a law school may admit no more than 10% of an
entering class without requiring the LSAT from students in an undergraduate program of the same institution as the J.D. program; and/or students seeking the J.D. degree in combination with a degree in a different discipline. Applicants admitted must have scored at the 85th percentile nationally, or above, on a standardized college or graduate admissions test, specifically the ACT, SAT, GRE, or GMAT; and must have ranked in the top 10% of their undergraduate class through six semesters of academic work, or achieved a cumulative GPA of 3.5 or above through six semesters of academic work.
(Hat tip: The Faculty Lounge)
I believe the ABA should grandfather in those who have worked in the legal field prior to law school. I've been a paralegal for over 20-years and have more experience than those just starting law school. Why do I have to take the LSAT???? Especially when I already have an Executive MBA in international business/economics/finance!
ReplyDeleteHaving 20 years of para-legal experience in and of itself will help you get into law school, however, I don't feel this experience should allow you be exempt from the LSAT. Your EMBA will also help you get accepted. Even if the LSAC allowed law school candidates with your experience to be exempt from the exam, how would law schools rate you against other applicants? The weight of the LSAT varies from school to school, but it is usually weighed about 50% of the entire acceptance process. This is a huge waiver you are asking for....
DeleteI completely agree. Sorry, but when a new associate does not even know how to simply "redact" a document or what that even means, my 10 years of paralegal experience should definitely make the cut especially if I have been doing work as an acting attorney without the JD at the end of my name.
DeleteThe GPA / standardized test requirements are laughable. This seems like a ploy by elite undergrad institutions to create an incentive for their undergrad students to attend their law schools rather than a more prestigious school, especially in the cases where prestigious undergrad schools lack equally prestigious law schools.
ReplyDelete"Prestigious" law schools....that's a bunch of hogwash. I'm a firm believer in that WHICHEVER law school you attend, you alone will make what you will of your own education. If you want a prestigious education, then you better study prodigiously and excel in everything that you do. It's as easy as that.
DeleteWhile I did struggle with the LSAT, I think getting rid of it completely is absurd. My feeling is by the time you get to any sort of professional/graduate school, you should be able to take a standardized test. If you can't, perhaps you should find another career.
ReplyDeleteI think anybody over 50 with a bachelors degree should be able to go to law school if they so desire. There are not that many of us wanting to go to law school, we have work experience and tons of life experience. Does not matter to the admissions they want the high LSAT score. Mature students bring to law school a whole new realm of thinking. Just my opinion.
ReplyDeleteThat sounds great! When will this policy pass? It does not sound like something that will happen in the near future. Do you know which schools will be eligible for the policy? Because I think it will be up to the schools. I just spoke with Stanford Law School and they don't foresee themselves accepting that policy so the LSAT appears to still be king!
ReplyDeleteResearch indicates that law school enrollment is down. However, how will this affect scholarships and grants given to 1Ls? Because most schools provide scholarships for 1Ls based upon your undergraduate GPA and the LSAT score. I have noticed that most law schools will tell you that they will look at your application holistically to be accepted into their program. However; in order to determine how much aid you will receive they solely look at the undergraduate GPA and LSAT scores.
I am a veteran of the armed forces, I am still trying to get my funding from the VA for law school. However, I am not going to wait on them that is why I need to retake the LSAT. I had some extenuating circumstances as to why I have a low undergraduate GPA however; I have two graduate degrees that I have excelled at to increase my academic standing.
In the meantime, in order for me to be competitive and to get into a law school of my choice I need to receive scholarships and grants as a 1L therefore; I need to retake the LSAT. I was just reading how critical that first year of law school is. Thanks for the information.
The LSAT is my Kryptonite. I took it 3 times over a decade and a half ago. While I did get a higher score each time, it was nowhere near the range that I needed to be at in order to get into any law school (and I applied everywhere). I still pursued a career in law and received my MBA in an accelerated program 7 years ago with high honors (oh and btw, the institution waived the GMAT for certain students including me). I've worked in the business affairs department of a major television network for over a decade. I negotiate some of the biggest deals with the best A List artists around. In fact, I have probably done a deal with everyone you can think of in the entertainment industry. Most attorneys that I negotiate against assume I am an attorney already. My LSAT score defines me as not worthy in the eyes of the ABA, yet my career path defines me as your boss. Attorneys come to me constantly for best practice tips. I can go on and on about how standardized tests just aren't the true answer to how well a person will succeed in their career. I commend the ABA for trying to accommodate the 10% but the proposed change most certainly should include applicants who bring extraordinary experience to the table in the field of law. Limiting the pool of applicants to only be those who attend law school where they received their undergraduate degree or forcing them to work on multiple debt, I mean degrees, simultaneously is just plain ridiculous. At this point in my career, the head of business affairs thinks that me attending law school is not even necessary anymore because I am already doing the job, but of course Superman (excuse me Superwoman) doesn't feel like the rescue will be official without the S on the chest. I just need my S to be hugged with an E and Q.
ReplyDeletePlease adopt me as your right hand person. Cheers to your statement and I feel the pain.
DeleteOh yea, u mean Superwoman must be before Queeney but after Edgar. Queeney could be me. So howeverlong it takes.Congrats on ur career.
Delete2013-2014 ABA Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools
DeleteChapter 5-Interpretation 503-1
A law school that uses an admission test other than the Law School Admission Test sponsored by the Law School Admission Council shall establish that such other test is a valid and reliable test to assist the school in assessing an applicant’s capability to satisfactorily complete the school’s educational program.http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_education/resources/standards.html
You are so right...I agree with everything you said...proud of you for accomplishing so much and showing the so called ABA that is NOT necessary to take the LSAT to make a "reasonable" prediction of passing the 1st year of law school or the bar exam...ridiculous...And by the way...so right about manipulating students in obtaining multiple degrees and debts of course and making money for those universities....I received honors obtaining a master's degree without having to pass a standardized test...yes...had to work full time during the day and go to school at night but I did it in ONLY one year to pay my graduate tuition...and at the end I am debt-free! Now, those schools accepting applicants w/out LSAT is just a scam because very few will be accepted under those terms...not minority members like ourselves who can do so much for our community...Thank you Superwoman!!!
DeleteSad for those of us who went to a school with no law school.: Tallahassee Community College and Saint Leo University.
ReplyDeleteI am a paralegal with 15 years of P.I., WC, SSA & VA Law experience under my belt, have a paralegal certificate and BA in Justice Studies with a broad legal concentration (opposed to CJ) and, am seriously considering law school; but, like many, am nervous about the LSAT. I would love to bypass the LSAT!! I felt overwhelming inclined to comment....just because I can draft, from scratch, a really kick ass brief for submission to the U.S. Court of Appeals...complicated motions for S/J that my attorney barely reviewed...and prep a file for trial that my attorneys don't even glance at until the weekend before the calendar call, does not compare to the experience and knowledge gained through law school. I don't care if the score on the bar exam is still wet and the kid doesn't know where to begin preparing a caption let alone answering a set of rogs...that young adult fresh out of law school has been trained to examine things in a way that we have not. We may be able to learn it a lot faster than new college grads just entering into law school but we don't know it yet. Part of being a good paralegal, is humbly respecting the boundaries of our service, knowledge and education. Being humble does not mean we cannot be confident. But there is a fine line to confidence that can equate to issues when over-confidence results in the unethical practice of law. If we want to practice law....we need to go to law school. Sorry this rant was off topic but a couple prior topics hit a nerve and the support they drew from others was a little unnerving. Being a paralegal (often feeling overworked and under appreciated) I am 100% on the side of fellow paralegals! But paralegals who self-declare their entitlement to an unearned JD hit a nerve with me b/c they give the rest of us a bad wrap. Maybe this will give them food for thought....think of the judge's secretary or law clerk. Not the professional, nice secretary or law clerk! I am talking about the nasty, condescending, unreasonable judge's secretary or law clerk. You know who I am talking about...they are the one's that deny your adjournments without any reasonable rationale; they offer no flexibility even if the flexibility is needed because of their error and the talk to us with such condescending tones that we end the call by slamming the phone down, deeply sighing and declaring "Man I can't stand him/her! He/she thinks she is the darn judge!!" Right? Fellow paralegals regularly engaging municipal and superior court staff, know exactly who I am talking about....My message to my fellow paralegals: Don't be that person! Let your experience and confidence be exemplified by the quality of your work product and devotion to your work ethic....don't squash your worth by running your mouth.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, law school does not teach document drafting - Law school is a place that prepares one to analyze and apply law to facts. It undergirds your critical thinking and elevate your mind beyond the tendency to emotionally react to issues. When you attend law school at a mature individual, your background and experience become useful which unable you to offer a different perspective to the many area of your studies, but they do not replace anything that you have come to learn in that setting.
ReplyDeleteLsat should be banned as long as you have a 3.5 gpa or higher, I should be recommendable. The main important part is having to take the bar exam. If one don't pass then you can't practice law.
ReplyDeleteThe thing about law school is that you have to take all these different areas of law in the first one and a half years of law school. My mind would only allowed me absorb the areas that I need to concentrate in. However, the field that i needed "immigration" was hardly ever taught on. In the UK you only need a bachelor's to practice law and you can receive it in two years. People are thinking of going that route . You can receive an other certifications in one year and work in other countries.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a good I deal. I have three degrees including an MBA and I really don't want to take another exam unless I have to. I would prefer to just set for the Bar Exam and go to school after I pass. I think taking the LSAT is a waist of time and money if you have at a Bachelors degree and a high GPA. If I could find a ABA school with no LSAT, I would sign up tomorrow.
DeleteWell said...I will sign up too!
Delete