Celebrating 10 years! 2007-2017

ABA Panel Seeks to End LSAT Requirement

https://goo.gl/gKXNpa ABA Panel Seeks to End LSAT Require kaneloa04/17/18
The ABA has not been looking out for the rank and file attor ibrslave04/17/18
If law schools must use a measuring bar, please use the GRE trijocker04/17/18
Disagree a bit. LSAT logic games seem much closer to an IQ t sillydood04/17/18
The issue is that the LSAT seems to spawn a cottage industry trijocker04/17/18
“There is a poster on JDU that has been studying for the L bizzybone131304/17/18
Does that mean you will finally apply to UT Austin next year trijocker04/17/18
UT Austin Law is auto admit for 3.8’s from TEXAS residents bizzybone131304/17/18
When you take the time value of money into account, 30 years trickydick04/17/18
Yeah sure Trickster: think about what you just said- I haven bizzybone131304/17/18
"How do I eat?" Homeless people usually sift through tras trickydick04/17/18
"The issue is that the LSAT seems to spawn a cottage industr supercalifragilisti04/18/18
The issue is that the LSAT is standing in the way of getting wearyattorney04/18/18
The GRE’s analytical writing section seems a good fit for therewillbeblood04/17/18
I've taken the GRE, GMAT and LSAT. The LSAT is much more sui gilles04/18/18
The LSAT is a racist examination perpetrated by the white ma wearyattorney04/17/18
Here’s some educational material, Buddy. Don’t step up bizzybone131304/17/18
The Mother of All Racial Preferences: Reflections on Affirma bizzybone131304/17/18
Have a great day “wearyattorney”..now go back to “wear bizzybone131304/17/18
That’s a very recent article, only 15 years old, there hav wearyattorney04/17/18
Definitely trolling. junkwired04/17/18
That'd hurt my income. loser1204/18/18

kaneloa (Apr 17, 2018 - 10:01 am)


ABA Panel Seeks to End LSAT Requirement
By Scott Jaschik
April 17, 2018

A panel of the American Bar Association has recommended that the ABA's accrediting committee end a requirement that law schools use the Law School Admission Test in admissions. The ABA has rules that have permitted some law schools to create options other than the LSAT, and a number of institutions have started to accept the Graduate Record Exam. But many have hoped for broader rule changes that would make it easier for law schools to offer such options. The recommendation still needs further review before final votes on adopting it.

Reply Like (0)
ibrslave (Apr 17, 2018 - 10:21 am)

The ABA has not been looking out for the rank and file attorneys toiling away trying to make a living, while the law schools churn out more and more unqualified graduates. This will only make it easier for law schools and the ABA to shirk their responsibilities to the legal community and the public at large so that law schools can keep the student loan money rolling in. I suppose that the ABA and law school cartel see this attack on the LSAT and their steady attack on state bar authorities as their only way to keep thousands of law school administrators and professors in the black. Eliminate all standards that address competency to go to law school and practice law, and then the ABA and law schools cannot be called out for admitting unqualified students or dumping them onto an unsuspecting public. Shameful.

Reply Like (0)
trijocker (Apr 17, 2018 - 10:35 am)

If law schools must use a measuring bar, please use the GRE or GMAT instead across the board.
The GRE tests on both math and english, this would be a better determinant of intelligence than the logic games and other strange portions of the LSAT. As it stands now, the LSAT props up an overcharging LSAT industry where students pay 1600 and spend half a year or more studying the logic games and reasoning. This is a waste of time and money that could be better spent on GRE or GMAT preparation. At least by accepting the GRE or GMAT a student could then apply to Business or Grad school instead of law school, but perhaps that is what law schools are truly afraid of.

Reply Like (0)
sillydood (Apr 17, 2018 - 11:08 am)

Disagree a bit. LSAT logic games seem much closer to an IQ test than GRE math. Math largely depends on what you've learned and practiced whereas logic games are more purely about how you think in general. People pour tons of time and money studying for both tests at any rate.

Reply Like (0)
trijocker (Apr 17, 2018 - 11:13 am)

The issue is that the LSAT seems to spawn a cottage industry of prep firms. When you have to spend 1500 on Testmasters, this may bar some socioeconomic groups from taking the LSAT test at all. There is a poster on JDU that has been studying for the LSAT for 15 years. Without the LSAT requirement, perhaps he would already be an attorney.
Math majors do the best on LSAT testing surprisingly enough, thus refuting the necessity of political science as a major for law school.
I think law schools finally want to do away with the LSAT as they are hurting for customers, i.e. paying law students.

Reply Like (0)
bizzybone1313 (Apr 17, 2018 - 11:21 am)

“There is a poster on JDU that has been studying for the LSAT for 15 years.”

He will attend a T-14 and make millions of dollars in income over the span of 3 decades to make up for his lost years (5ish)— rather than toil for decades in the confines of doo doo law due to his inferior educational pedigree.

One cannot charge paying clients as easily for $400 an hour when one graduated from Cooley Law. But one can certainly charge plenty of paying clients $400 bucks an hour for a graduate of the prestigious world renowned Columbia University School of Law.

Bizzy- rapper, future lawyer and CEO of multiple businesses

Reply Like (0)
trijocker (Apr 17, 2018 - 1:41 pm)

Does that mean you will finally apply to UT Austin next year?

Reply Like (0)
bizzybone1313 (Apr 17, 2018 - 1:53 pm)

UT Austin Law is auto admit for 3.8’s from TEXAS residents. Because there’s a cap on out of state students being allowed to enroll by state law at around 30-35%. I don’t imagine I’ll be enrolling at UT Law. I imagine I’ll be waking up feeling prestigious as I wake up every day in my dorm at Duke, Cornell or Michigan Law...or dare I say Hahvard.

Reply Like (0)
trickydick (Apr 17, 2018 - 3:09 pm)

When you take the time value of money into account, 30 years of earning an attorney's salary wouldn't compensate for the 15 years you spent without a reliable source of income.

Reply Like (0)
bizzybone1313 (Apr 17, 2018 - 3:30 pm)

Yeah sure Trickster: think about what you just said- I haven’t made money in 15 years. How do I eat? How do I pay my bills?

I’ll make money during LS with my 2 albums I would have released by my date of matriculation with royalties rolling in.

Reply Like (0)
trickydick (Apr 17, 2018 - 6:01 pm)

"How do I eat?"

Homeless people usually sift through trash.

"How do I pay my bills?"

You don't.

Reply Like (0)
supercalifragilisti (Apr 18, 2018 - 1:09 pm)

"The issue is that the LSAT seems to spawn a cottage industry of prep firms."

Boy, are you mistaken if you think the GRE, GMAT, and every other standardized test doesn't do exactly the same thing.

Reply Like (0)
wearyattorney (Apr 18, 2018 - 3:51 pm)

The issue is that the LSAT is standing in the way of getting law school professors paid. And if you aren’t for law school professors getting paid, you are a racist. You are also probably a sexist too.

Reply Like (0)
therewillbeblood (Apr 17, 2018 - 12:32 pm)

The GRE’s analytical writing section seems a good fit for legal potential than anything else.

Reply Like (0)
gilles (Apr 18, 2018 - 6:49 pm)

I've taken the GRE, GMAT and LSAT. The LSAT is much more suite to predicting law school and law practice success than either of the other one, in my opinion. There's very little math in law (sadly), but there's an awful lot of logic.

Reply Like (0)
wearyattorney (Apr 17, 2018 - 11:26 am)

The LSAT is a racist examination perpetrated by the white man to keep otherwise competent minorities out of the legal field.

It’s good that we are getting rid of it.

We also need more government oversight and regulation. We need to make sure people aren’t being denied admission that have soft factors that serve as a testament to their ability to have successful and renumerative careers in law. The Department of Education needs to authorize a subsection of the ABA to fine law schools for rejecting qualified applicants.

Most importantly though, I am glad that as we get rid of extraneous barriers to entry, 3 years of law school, no matter the cost, remains in place. Thinking like a lawyer is priceless and we don’t want to get too overzealous in eliminating standards, especially that one. How is someone going to be able to successfully defend someone in a criminal proceeding, draft a will, perform an M and A due diligence, etc without the rigorous training inherent in the Socratic method.

God damn racist republicans I tell you, always machinizing on how to keep the colored and women folk down.

God Bless these selfless liberal educators that are fighting the good fight, when they could be earning 8 figure incomes at Big Law, they deny themselves material well being to fight the good fight.

Reply Like (0)
bizzybone1313 (Apr 17, 2018 - 11:32 am)

Here’s some educational material, Buddy. Don’t step up to the plate if you cannot speak well on a topic you are oh so ignorant about.

Reply Like (0)
bizzybone1313 (Apr 17, 2018 - 11:35 am)

The Mother of All Racial Preferences: Reflections on Affirmative Action for White Folks
Posted on May 24, 2003

A slightly different version of this essay appeared as a ZNet Commentary, 5/24/03

Ask a fish what water is and you’ll get no answer, and not only because fish can’t speak. Even if they were capable of vocalizing a reply, they wouldn’t have one for such a question. When water surrounds you every minute of the day, explaining what it is becomes impossible. It simply is. It’s taken for granted.

So too with this thing we hear so much about called “racial preference.” While many whites apparently are convinced that the notion originated with affirmative action programs, intended to expand opportunities for historically marginalized people of color, racial preference has actually had a long and very white history.

Affirmative action for whites was embodied in the abolition of European indentured servitude, which left black (and occasionally indigenous) slaves as the only unfree labor in the colonies that would become the U.S. Affirmative action for whites was the essence of the 1790 Naturalization Act, which allowed any European immigrant to become a full citizen, even while blacks, Asians, and American Indians could not. Affirmative action for whites was the guiding principle of segregation, Asian exclusion, and the theft of half of Mexico for the fulfillment of Manifest Destiny.
In recent history, affirmative action for whites motivated racially-restrictive housing policies that helped 15 million white families procure homes with FHA loans from the 1930s to the ’60s, while people of color were mostly excluded from the same programs. In other words, on balance, white America is the biggest collective recipient of racial preference in history. Such preference has skewed our laws, shaped our public policy and helped create the glaring inequalities with which we still live.

White racial preference explains why white families, on average, have a net worth eleven times that of black families: a gap that remains substantial even when only comparing families of like size, composition, education and income status; and it also helps explain, at least in part, why a full-time black male worker in 2003 made less in real dollar terms than similar white men were earning in 1967. Such realities do not merely indicate the disadvantages faced by blacks, but indeed are evidence of the preferences afforded whites: the necessary flipside of discrimination.

Indeed, the value of preferences to whites over the years is so enormous that the current baby-boomer generation of whites is currently in the process of inheriting between $7-10 trillion in assets from their parents and grandparents: property handed down by those who were able to accumulate assets at a time when people of color couldn’t. To place this in perspective, we should note that this amount of money is more than all the outstanding mortgage debt, all the credit card debt, all the savings account assets, all the money in IRA’s and 401k retirement plans, all the annual profits for U.S. manufacturers, and our entire merchandise trade deficit combined.

Yet few whites think of our position as resulting from racial preference. Indeed, we pride ourselves on our hard work and ambition, as if we invented the concepts; as if we have worked harder than the folks who were forced to pick cotton and build levees for free; harder than the Latino immigrants who spend ten hours a day in fields picking strawberries or tomatoes; harder than the (mostly) women of color who clean up messy hotel rooms, or change bedpans in hospitals, or the (mostly) men of color who collect our garbage: a crucial service without which we would face not only unpleasant smells but the spread of disease.

We strike the pose of self-sufficiency while ignoring the advantages we have been afforded in every realm of activity: housing, education, employment, criminal justice, politics and business. We ignore that at every turn, our hard work has been met with access to an opportunity structure to which millions of others have been denied similar access. Privilege, to us, is like water to the fish: invisible precisely because we cannot imagine life without it.

It is that context that best explains the duplicity of the President’s critique of affirmative action at the University of Michigan, during the recent court battle over so-called “racial preferences” at that institution. President Bush, himself a lifelong recipient of affirmative action — the kind set-aside for the rich and mediocre — proclaimed that the school’s policies were unfair. Yet in doing so he not only showed a profound ignorance of the Michigan policy, but also made clear the inability of yet another white person to grasp the magnitude of white privilege still in operation; an inability sadly ratified by the Supreme Court when it ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in the Michigan case, in June 2003.

To wit, the President, and ultimately the Supreme Court, attacked Michigan’s policy of awarding twenty points (on a 150-point evaluation scale) to undergraduate applicants who were members of underrepresented minorities, which at U of M means blacks, Latinos and American Indians. To many whites such a “preference” was blatantly discriminatory. Yet what Bush and the Court failed to mention were the greater numbers of points awarded for other things, and which had the clear effect of preferencing whites to the exclusion of people of color.

For example, Michigan awarded twenty points to any student from a low-income background, regardless of race. Since those points could not be combined with those for minority status (in other words poor blacks don’t get forty points), in effect this was a preference for poor whites. Then Michigan awarded sixteen points to students from the Upper Peninsula of the state: a rural and almost completely white area.

Of course both preferences were fair, based as they were on the recognition that economic status and geography (as with race) can have a profound effect on the quality of schooling that one receives, and that no one should be punished for such things that are beyond their control. But note that such preferences, though disproportionately awarded to whites, remained uncriticized throughout the litigation on this case, while preferences for people of color become the target for reactionary anger. Once again, white preference remained hidden because it wasn’t called white preference, even if that was the effect.

But that’s not all. Ten points were awarded under the Michigan plan to students who attended top high schools, and another eight points were given to students who took an especially demanding AP and Honors curriculum. As with points for those from the Upper Peninsula, these preferences may have been race-neutral in theory, but in practice they were anything but. Because of intense racial isolation (and Michigan’s schools are the most segregated in America for blacks according to research by the Harvard Civil Rights Project), students of color will rarely attend the “best” schools, and on average, schools serving mostly black and Latino students offer only a third as many AP and honors courses as schools serving mostly whites. So even truly talented students of color would have been unable to access those extra points simply because of where they live, their economic status, and ultimately their race, which is intertwined with both.
Then up to twelve points were awarded for a student’s SAT score, which is itself directly correlated with a student’s socioeconomic status, which in turn is highly correlated with race in a way that favors whites and disadvantages most students of color.
Four more points were awarded to students with a parent who attended the U of M: a kind of affirmative action with which the President is intimately familiar, and which almost exclusively goes to whites.

In other words, Michigan was offering twenty “extra” points to the typical black, Latino or indigenous applicant, while offering various combinations worth up to 70 extra points for students who would almost all be white. But while the first of these were seen as examples of racial preferences, the second were not, hidden as they were behind the structure of social inequities that limit where people live, where they go to school, and the kinds of opportunities they have been afforded. White preferences, by being the result of the normal workings of a racist society, can remain out of sight and out of mind, while the power of the state is turned against the paltry preferences meant to offset them.

To recognize just how blind so many white Americans are to the workings of white privilege, one need only consider the oft-heard comment by whites that “if I had only been black I would have gotten into my first-choice college.” Such a statement not only ignores the fact that whites are more likely than members of any group, even with affirmative action, to get into their first-choice school, but it also presumes, as anti-racist activist Paul Marcus explains, “that if these whites were black, everything else about their life would have remained the same: that it would have made no negative difference as to where they went to school, what their family income was, or anything else.”

But this ability to believe that being black would have made no difference (other than a beneficial one when it came time for college), and that being white has made no positive difference, is rooted in privilege itself: the privilege of not having one’s intelligence questioned by books like The Bell Curve, or one’s culture attacked as dysfunctional by politicians and so-called scholars; the privilege of not having to worry about being viewed as “out of place” when driving, shopping, buying a home, or attending the University of Michigan; the privilege of not being denied an interview for a job because your name sounds “too black,” as a recent study discovered happens often to African American job-seekers.

So long as those privileges remain firmly in place and the preferential treatment that flows from those privileges continues to work to the benefit of whites, all talk of ending affirmative action is not only premature but a slap in the face to those who have fought and died for equal opportunity.

Reply Like (0)
bizzybone1313 (Apr 17, 2018 - 11:40 am)

Have a great day “wearyattorney”..now go back to “wearily” working 60 hours a week for $65K doing fender bender copy and paste jobs!!!

Reply Like (0)
wearyattorney (Apr 17, 2018 - 12:14 pm)

That’s a very recent article, only 15 years old, there havent been any fundamental economic or social changes since then...

Indeed, the best way to empower young minorities is to eliminate every single objective entry and credentialing standard associated with becoming a lawyer, EXCEPT mandating the spending of 250k in tax payer guaranteed money, which cannot be discharged in bankruptcy by said minorities, to learn how to think like a lawyer from, in almost all circumstances, a largely cacausian faculty whose only experience practicing law is 2 years of document review at Big Law in the 80s and 90s.

Bizzy for the non-sequitur of the year!!!!!

Oh yeah, if you don’t agree with said provisioning of 250k to said faculty, you are a racist!!!!!!

Reply Like (0)
junkwired (Apr 17, 2018 - 12:03 pm)

Definitely trolling.

Reply Like (0)
loser12 (Apr 18, 2018 - 11:36 am)

That'd hurt my income.

Reply Like (0)
Post a message in this thread