About four times a year, students across the country nervously sit for what could be the most important four hours of their lives up until that point. Sure, they’re prepared, but nothing can shake the inevitable nervous feelings that ensue on test day. That nerve-wracking test I’m talking about is the LSAT–the admissions exam for law schools in the United States. Law schools sift through thousands of applications every year. When initially considering an applicant, they mainly look at two things: their undergraduate GPA, and their LSAT score. But what if I were to tell you that one of those criteria was no longer considered?

Well if you were to apply to the State University of New York-Buffalo Law School or the University of Iowa College of Law, that would be the case. Both of these schools have decided to admit students who have not taken the LSAT. Instead, they have stated that they will admit some students based on their undergraduate GPAs and their scores on other standardized tests.

These are just the first two schools to implement such policies, taking advantage of a new ruling by the American Bar Association that now permits law schools to fill up to 10 percent of their law school classes with students who have not taken the LSAT. So long as that student has a strong GPA and strong additional standardized test scores, they can be admitted.

If you’re anything like I am, you’re probably asking yourself “what other standardized test could they possibly use?” Well, believe it or not, these schools will be considering ACT and SAT scores from at least four years earlier for undergraduate admissions. They will also be considering things such as the GRE, GMAT, or college aptitude tests.

The aim of this new policy is to combat declining law school enrollment. These schools believe that if potential applicants do not have to worry about preparing and paying for an additional exam, then they will be more likely to apply. James Gardner, the dean of SUNY Buffalo’s law school, stated that “taking the LSAT is a pain, and it is expensive.” Everyone who takes the test must pay a $170 fee, and that doesn’t take into account the steep costs of tutoring or an LSAT preparation course. According to Gardner, “this is just a way to identify strong-performing students based on perfectly rational criteria that don’t involve the LSAT.”

While this may sound like a great leveler, think about what it actually means. If law schools start to use college admissions exams, like the SAT, for law school admissions, it will only make sure those same obstacles come four years sooner. If a high school student has some sort of inclination that they want to go to law school after college, they have the added pressure of doing well on the SAT for that purpose, four years too soon. I always knew I wanted to go to law school, and let me tell you, I would not have been too excited to find out that my SAT scores counted not only for college, but for law school as well.

The unique thing about the LSAT is that it is a good indicator of how well students will perform in law school. Research shows that LSAT scores are a good predictor of not only how well students will perform in their first year of law school, but also how likely a student is to pass the bar exam. It’s unlikely that law schools will be able to discern the same things about applicants from other standardized tests.

Sure, this new policy may draw some people in that may have been deterred from considering law school if they needed to take the LSAT, diversifying the applicant pool. However, if we consider the research, don’t we want to have some indication that students will succeed in law school before investing three years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in a legal education? Isn’t that the whole point of the LSAT?

While some law schools no longer require all students to take the LSAT for admissions, I for one, will still be one of those nervous students sitting for my exam come June.

Brittany Alzfan

Brittany Alzfan is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Two U.S. Law Schools No Longer Require the LSAT for Admission appeared first on Law Street.

After nearly six years of legal battles, Teresa Wagner was just granted a new trial against the University of Iowa College of Law. Wagner alleges she was looked over for a promotion because of her political beliefs. She first sued then Iowa Law Dean Carolyn Jones in 2009. She insisted that she was not considered fairly for a legal writing position at the law school due to the fact that she is a conservative, an open advocate of anti-abortion efforts, and a supporter of the nation’s largest pro-life organization, the National Right to Life Committee.

The evidence provided by Wagner’s attorney featured a statement by the Associate Dean, Jonathan C. Carlson, to former Dean Jones. Carlson stated, “frankly, one thing that worries me is that some people may be opposed to Teresa serving in any role, in part at least because they so despise her politics (and especially her activism about it.)”

Of course, it’s a horrible thought that a prospective employee was discriminated against because of their sexual orientation, skin color, or any other reason. As a fervent pro-choice advocate myself, I must say I’d be appalled I was looked over for a job because of my political views. It’s absolutely Wagner’s right to be considered based on merit, and merit alone. In addition to the comment from Carlson, the video of Wagner’s interview with the faculty was suspiciously erased shortly after their decision not to hire her. Jones, however, contended that Wagner was passed over because she had “preformed miserably in a presentation.”

Wagner’s case seemed to be doomed from the onset. Her original lawsuit against Jones, first filed in 2009, was met with indecision from the jury. While they agreed that Jones was clear of the political discrimination charge, the jurors admitted they could not decide if Wagner’s equal protection rights had been breached. Therefore, the judge ruled the second count a mistrial, but only after reassembling and questioning the jurors thoroughly. An appeals court review decided that the reassembly was considered improper questioning by the judge, seeing as the jurors had had the opportunity to be influenced during the short break through high speed technology like smart phones. As a result, Wagner will now have a new trial.

This technical back-and-forth seems to have clouded the real issue at the core of Wagner’s case. This case highlights the huge disparity in political representation among law school faculty. At the time of Wagner’s application for the legal writing job there was just one registered Republican on an Iowa Law faculty of about 50. This trend doesn’t seem to be specific to the University of Iowa. In 2005, the Georgetown Law Journal actually released a report claiming that “81 percent [of law school professors] gave wholly or mostly to Democrats, while 15 percent gave wholly or mostly to Republicans.” For some reason, law schools seem to favor liberal professors, or at the very least attract them. But why has this trend been able to fly under the radar, despite research on the issue? Institutions of higher learning, including the University of Iowa, have entire departments dedicated to “diversity,” but in what capacity? It seems to me that they have allowed themselves to be restricted by a narrow definition of racial, ethnic, or cultural diversity. Although I agree that these things are vital to incorporate in an education, what about diversity of thought?

Fortunately for employment-seeking conservative law profs, there are advocates speaking out on their behalf, and raising awareness about the lack of right-leaning voices in legal academia. Organizations, such as the Federalist Society, help combat the, “orthodox liberal ideology which advocates a centralized and uniform society” that they believe is dominating the legal profession and higher education. One of the ways it endeavors to shorten the gap is through its extensive network of conservative and libertarian intellectuals in the legal community.

An alternative possible solution could be a sort of affirmative action focusing on political affiliations. But as with the original concept of racial affirmative action, this idea invites the possibility that quotas eventually takes precedence over merit, effectively reversing the effects the law would seek to reform. Though this case brought up the lack of political diversity among law school faculty, this solution seems less than viable. Most can agree that reform is needed, but not to the point that courts have more of a say in the qualification of certain applicants than experienced university administration. Hiring processes need to be made more transparent while also retaining fair policies.

Like any hot-button political issue, there’s no easy solution. Differing views are, in academia, usually a good thing. Our nation’s law students have the right to be able to be exposed to viewpoints different than their own, debate the issues, and if needed, disagree with their instructors. Regardless of the outcome of Wagner’s new trial, I’m glad that this case has ignited a conversation about ideological diversity in legal education.

—

Erika Bethmann (@EBethmann) is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Dave Jones-one of many via Flickr]

Erika Bethmann

Erika Bethmann is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Iowa Law Legal Battle Sheds Light on Academic Diversity appeared first on Law Street.