According to The Daily Pennsylvanian, the American Bar Association is currently looking at a proposal to make the oft-dreaded Law School Admission Test optional. If passed, this proposal would alter the system of law school admissions that has been in place since the first administration of the LSAT in 1948.I'm tempted to go on a diatribe about how the ABA just doesn't fucking understand. I think I will. Like it or not, the LSAT is the great equalizer. Everyone knows, or should know, that an "A" is easier to get at University of Phoenix than it is at Harvard. But how can a law school determine who is the better candidate without some sort of equalizing criteria? The LSAT, that's how. The University of Phoenix Grad can perhaps usurp the Harvard grad's place with an awesome LSAT score of.... 179 or so. I know, it's unlikely, but it can happen.
What the hell are law schools supposed to rely on, if not the LSATs? Extra-curricular bullshit? Maybe they will do interviews? Charisma, charm, cleavage can be taken into account?
I can only think that the new plan is to inundate the market with flagrant idiots so that the costs of labor will be floor level and the PPP (Profits Per Partner) will be astronomical. Let's not kid ourselves. Anyone who has been a first year associate realizes that the work can be done by pygmy goats. But that's not an indictment of the profession--once you get to a certain level, things are complicated. Also, if you do real litigation in a mid-sized or small law firm, the work can be dizzying at times. So, back to my point--they want to pay lawyers even less than Manmeat Patel in Bangladesh, so that the PPP can be astronomical. So, part one of the plan: MORE and less competent people should go to law school. Check!
Then, on the other side of the tunnel, à la the post about the indebted law school grad that can't pass the bar because of law school debt, they will prohibit people from passing the bar. Then, part two of the plan. I predict, the ABA will somehow say that bar passage is only required for attorneys that sign documents. Ta-da! Two class of lawyers, indentured slave servants who probably should not have gone to law school to begin with--and the Partners, the upper echelon of the legal profession.
That's my prediction. What do you think?
The ABA can't possibly be considering the needs of lawyers as a whole when it considers dip shit moves like this one. Since I know that they all took the LSATs and are moderately competent people, I can only assume that their goals for the legal industry are wholly divergent from ours. The collect "ours" being that of recent, debt-laden grads who are without work or a loaf of bread upon which to spread Jiffy. I know the LSAT sucks. However, it's a test that you can master and you can distinguish yourself from the masses with that goddamn test. In the article mentioned above, some GT Hoya says:
"While I agree that the LSAT often discriminates against some students and that it may not be a fair assessment of a person's worth or talent, it is certainly the only measure we currently have to gage a student's ability to succeed in law school," Mehta said in an email. "Until a new, unbiased form of testing can be put into place, there is currently no better way to gauge a student's ability to perform in such a demanding profession."I have to disagree with him wholeheartedly. Once you get to a certain level, maybe 165, you're not more or less likely to do better than other students that score higher than you. On the other hand, if you score <150, you have no business going to law school at all. You don't have the aptitude for it... hell, maybe you had a bad day. The point is, that law school will be bad day after bad day and you can't handle the pressure. Stay home, cause you'll be living there after you complete law school anyway-your childhood home. Let's end with what this idiot's quote regarding the "plus" side of eliminating the LSAT:
Evan Monod (COL '14), who is considering a career as an attorney, believes that the cost of the test itself, test preparation and the long hours of studying serve as a deterrent to students who might otherwise enter the legal profession.
"I would definitely support making it optional because I think it would increase the number of kids able to go to a good law school and participate in a profession that we desperately need bright people in," Monod said.Exactly my point. Lift the flood gates. Where is Noah's ark when you need it?