Scroll Top

Phone: 1.800.296.9656        Email: circulation@cypressmagazines.com 

ABA votes to drop LSAT requirement: Will law schools drop it?

Related Articles

The American Bar Association Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admission to the Bar took a big step on Nov. 18, voting to drop its requirement that law schools use a standardized test. However, despite the change, a recent survey shows that fewer than 10% of law schools will likely drop usage of the LSAT.

The ABA Council approved the change as a way to help law schools meet diversity goals. The ABA’s House of Delegates will make the final decision on these changes proposed by the council in February 2023. If the proposal is adopted, there is still a provision that delays implementation until Fall 2025. Students seeking admission for 2026 would be the first to be eligible.

But no longer requiring the use of the LSAT or a similar test, does not mean law schools will start abandoning the long-used metric in admissions.

Kaplan, which runs LSAT prep and other prep courses, surveyed law school admissions officers and found that fewer than 10% plan to drop it. 45% of administrators surveyed said they didn’t know what their school would do. 37% said they would very likely continue requiring applicants to take an admissions exam.

Only two schools surveyed out of 82 said they were very unlikely to continue usage of an exam. Two more said they were somewhat unlikely to continue usage.

One school said, “If you have no standards, there may be the tendency for some schools to exploit financially disadvantaged prospective students notwithstanding noble intentions. The schools will make out fine, but the students may be saddled with debt, unable to pass the bar, and/or secure employment. If the ABA really wanted to test the concept (and tie it bar passage), then it should simply increase the percentage of students a school can admit without an admission test from their own institutions under one of the interpretations to ABA Standard 503.”

A different school response said that once a school chooses to not require test scores, it will create pressure for the rest of the schools to remove it. They said the tests are one of the useful ways to create a data point for evaluating and making a decision.

Another school said, “We know schools over-rely on the LSAT in their admission decision-making for purposes of rankings, so ridding of the standardized tests will force schools to improve their evaluation process away from that metric. We also know that Black and Brown students are heavily disadvantaged because of the LSAT/GRE so removing that factor will improve diversity, not impede it.”

Julia Brunette Johnson

Julia Brunette Johnson

Julia is a contributing reporter for the National Jurist and preLaw magazines.

Comments (2)

The idea that removal of LSAT will help with diversity is likely false and may actually decrease diversity. If a large number of schools drop the LSAT, they will have to rely more on transcripts and undergraduate gpa. That will reduce chances for students, including minority students, who don’t go to elite schools, who don’t pick the right major, or who get degrees from schools with inflated grades or poor academic reputations. The LSAT actually helps because it can help a student overcome issues with a mediocre undergraduate record. Admission offices will be flying blind and may well revert to a more restrictive approach since they have to consider likelihood of bar passage.

Contrary to the idea that eliminating the LSAT will decrease diversity, the LSAT is also eliminating prospective minorities from otherwise an opportunity into Law School. Instead of each party (or person) stating their own perspective on why or why not they believe–which is by all accounts, just a belief– what the outcome of keeping or eliminating the LSAT would do to diversity, we should step back and take an empirical view. We would not have this argument if the system was working fine. There is an obvious problem, or we would not be in this discussion. The LSAT should be waive for a period of time, perhaps 5 years. During that time, let’s collect the data and allow the numbers to give us the answer moving forward.

Leave a comment

Digital Magazine
Newsletter Signup
OUR SPONSORS

Get unlimited access

Get a premium subscription to the National Jurist for less than $2 a month.