Bar Association reconsiders LSAT

For Penn students interested in attending law school, one hurdle in the application process may soon be eliminated.

A proposal to make the Law School Admission Test optional for law school entry is currently being considered by the American Bar Association’s Section on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar. A final decision on this proposal will occur in 2012.

According to William Henderson, a professor at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law, the LSAT has become problematic as too much emphasis is placed on scores when determining law school rankings. Consequently, applicants’ LSAT scores have become too large a factor in determining law school acceptance.

“You should look at the whole person, not just the test score,” said Henderson, who has conducted multiple studies on the LSAT.

Some Penn students were eager to hear about the ABA’s proposal. “I think it would be a good decision in that it would equal the playing field for underprivileged students who might not have the money needed to take an LSAT preparation course and do well on the LSAT,” Sarah Klein, a College junior and President of Pre-Law Women at Penn, wrote in an e-mail.

Wilson Leung, a first-year student at the Law School, echoed Klein’s sentiments. “I’d say [the test is] somewhat arbitrary,” Leung said. “Just like college admissions are somewhat arbitrary, there’s too high of a pool of applicants and the LSAT is just one way to filter out people. I’m not sure it really matters in the end.”

Although the ABA may decide to make the LSAT optional, applicants to Penn Law will still be required to take the test, according to Associate Dean of Admissions Renee Post.

“The Law School’s admissions committee evaluates every applicant holistically,” Post wrote in an e-mail. “The LSAT is one of a number of factors we consider, and we have no plans to make it an optional part of the admissions process.”

College sophomore Ari Cohen, who plans to attend law school, agreed that the LSAT seems like an important part of the admissions process.

“[The LSAT is] probably a smart barrier to entry, if anything, and getting rid of it would increase the attraction of law school as a way of avoiding other, potentially more appropriate plans,” she wrote in an e-mail. “I don’t think law school should be taken as a light decision, since it will be three years of grueling work.”

Henderson also explained that eliminating the LSAT may have “unintended consequences.”

“It’s going to affect bar passage, it may affect classroom dynamics to a certain extent,” he said. “It may have other laudatory aspects like diversity, which I support. There are definite benefits to getting rid of it, but there are also costs. And I don’t know if the costs have been fully considered.”

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.