A recent higher ed article ( https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/04/28/new-book-based-interviews-law-deans-and-admissions-officers-details-impact-rankings ) discusses a book that was written that talks about the ranking systems in law schools. It discusses how the LSAT scores have become a main indicator of what a good lawyer or good law school student would be. It talks about how the LSATS are taken more into consideration than students’ GPAs are. Since LSATs are so important to law schools’ rankings, the deans of those schools seem to choose students based on those scores. This decreases the diversity in those schools, because minority groups tend to have lower LSAT scores than white and Asian groups.
I found this article interesting for two reasons. One reason is that I am a prelaw student who is soon going to be venturing into this world of the LSATs. I find it so frightening that four years of amazing grades could so easily be degraded by a day-long exam that requires only a few months’ study time. I agree that having the LSAT carry so much weight is wrong. One standardized test will not determine if someone will be a good lawyer/law student or not. Furthemore, a school that takes students with lower LSAT scores isn’t a worse school, even though the rankings portray it as so, because there is other criteria that can make a student worthy of acceptance.
The second reason this article attracted my attention is what it mentioned about diversity. This relates to what we’ve been discussing in class. Having standardized tests, such as LSATs, MCATs, SATs, and the ACTs, determine which student will progress in higher education creates an imbalance in enrollments. Students that are brought up in homes with higher incomes will be more likely to do well on these exams, because they’ll have the tools available to them that can lead them to success. They can afford tutors, prep courses, prep books, etc. , while the underprivileged cannot and will not have the same opportunities to prepare as they did. I agree that measures need to be taken to fix this issue and make it that diversity is just as much of a priority as high LSAT scores are. Furthermore, there should be more than one exam that can tell a students’ preparedness for law school. For example, when applying to undergraduate school, students have the option of taking the SATs or the ACTs. There should be an alternative to taking the LSAT that can allow students to have more leeway in how they study for such a significant exam.
Robyn, I agree with most of what you are saying. It is ridiculous for a person’s future to be determined by one exam, but unfortunately it is true in the case of the LSATs. The weight of this exam seems to be an unfortunate consequence of a growing number of competitive applicants to law schools. The following article: http://www.lawschoolpodcaster.com/2010/09/28/the-ugly-truth-why-the-lsat-is-the-most-important-part-of-your-law-school-application/ seems to explain why the LSAT is so important (the reputation of this site hasn’t been confirmed but they seem to back up their data). Law schools see the LSAT as the most important determining factor because higher scores increase the rank of the school, they actually test real knowledge (as opposed to the SAT and ACT), and law firms use these scores to separate candidates.
However, keep in mind that students who do well in school don’t usually perform poorly on exams of this gravity: they apply themselves diligently to the study of the LSAT (in this case) as they do with their general schoolwork. So don’t be dismayed by the significance of this test; if you are a good student you will do well!
With regards to there being more than one test, I don’t think that’s such a good idea. The SAT and ACT don’t really have a good conversion to determine who has the better scores because one test may be easier than the other and that takes away from some students’ scores. For instance, many people (in my high school at least) didn’t get into as many schools as they hoped even though they scored in the 34-36 range for the ACT. This is because many people scored in this range. Meanwhile, people who scored 2200+ on the SAT (a score which is seen as equivalent to 34-36 for the ACT) got into more schools. In addition, if there is one LSAT, then law schools know what is on the test and know what a student knows and doesn’t know since, again, the LSAT tests something real. So I do not agree with you on this point.
Your overall argument though is correct in my opinion. Medical schools, while also placing much weight on the MCAT, take into consideration the other aspects of your college career. They realize that you’ve worked hard for four years and have other things to show than just an MCAT score. But this is interesting as the same three reasons from the article I mentioned earlier also apply to medical schools. This is something to think about.
I also agree with a lot of what you’re saying, Robyn. When it came to applying for colleges, I was extremely nervous that my performance on the SAT wouldn’t match up to my GPA and that colleges would essentially focus too much on that one exam. I’m not a prelaw student, but I know that law schools really do stress this exam and place a lot of pressure on prospective law students. These schools should be looking beyond a test score and look for well-rounded students. It’s unfair to you that you have to feel like this one exam determines your future. Ideally, it would be great to have an alternative to taking the LSAT, because it broadens a student’s options and they could choose the alternative that suits them best. However, I have to agree with Ian that it is not realistic. If it is true that people who scored a high number on the ACT, weren’t able to get into a school that accepted students with scores equivalent for the SAT, then there must really be an issue with having alternate testing options. I hope that when your time comes to take the LSAT law schools don’t stress this one exam as much and learn to consider the other criteria that a student has to offer. Good luck!
It is quite unfortunate that our futures are based on one standardized exams but I believe that it is inevitable. Everyone comes from different schools, learn from different professors and take different tests for the classes. We all know that our GPA is very dependent on who we have as professors. Due to this, it is very difficult for Medical Schools, Law Schools, or any graduate schools to really determine your knowledge and capabilities. I’m not very strong on these big tests as well, and I wish my knowledge doesn’t need to be labeled excellent, good, average, or bad by just a single standardized test. However, we live in a society where competition is key for survival. I highly doubt that this will ever change. Yes, these standardized tests are very crucial for the next step in life but the schools don’t only focus on that because they want well-rounded students. Of course, if a student’s score was terrible, that would be out of question.
I agree, there should be more equal opportunities for all aspiring law students and lawyers regardless of their income class. Since prep schools, guides, books etc. are very expensive, the better off applicants would always have an edge in preparing for standardized tests. The LSAT also serves as an indicator if you can get into the “top” law schools wherein they only accept those with exceptional grades. The top schools are top for a reason, and it may be unfair that they only accept “top” students, but it is what it is.