The LSAT Should Not be a Factor in Law School Admissions

1. The LSAT does not test for the skills necessary to be an innovative, successful lawyer.

• No synthesis, writing, or speaking requirement.
• The Test is multiple choice that rewards elimination and guessing as much as comprehension and analysis.
• The test is highly structured, a confined environmental anachronistic to the real world
• The test is time limited, rewarding those who read quickly
• Promotes individual work, rather than collaboration

2. The result of LSAT based admissions is a less diverse, less interesting, and less accomplished student body.

• The Test itself is quite learnable, thus assessing thinks like (1) prudence (2) leisure time (3) wealth and (4) planning, rather than critical thinking
• Working within a “confined universe of knowledge” leads to intellectually conservative thinking and the standardization of problem solving.

3. Why the LSAT lives on

• Makes it easy for admissions officers
• It is a huge industry
• The US News Rankings
• It is a stepping stone to being a corporate drone, so the big firms like it
• Prisoner’s Dilemma Among Law Schools
• No one with any power has any incentive to change it.
  • Students are just tourists at their schools, their professors are increasingly academics, not teachers.
  • The schools on top won’t shake the status quo, those underneath have to play the game and hope for crumbs.

-- AdamCarlis - 24 Mar 2008