Title : "I would hate to give up on my dream of becoming a family lawyer, just due to not being able to successfully handle this test."
link : "I would hate to give up on my dream of becoming a family lawyer, just due to not being able to successfully handle this test."
"I would hate to give up on my dream of becoming a family lawyer, just due to not being able to successfully handle this test."
Wrote Fariha Amin, "a full-time worker and mother to a 6-year-old son," quoted in "Law School Accrediting Panel Votes to Make LSAT Optional/Legal-education community has been divided over testing requirement and its impact on diversity in admissions" (Wall Street Journal).
And here's a quote from John White, chair of LSAC’s board of trustees: "This proposal will be highly disruptive. The change won’t be worth it, and we won’t get the diversity we are looking for."
I wonder how he knows... how he thinks he knows.
There's also council member Craig Boise, dean of Syracuse University College of Law: "I find the argument that the test is necessary to save diversity in legal education is bizarre."
How is it "bizarre"? It's something I've heard for more than 30 years. (I was a lawprof for more than 30 years, and I often served on the admissions committee. I've read many real applications and seen the relationship between LSAT scores and other aspects of an applicant's qualifications.)
The LSAT produces a hard number, and it feels secure to rely on such things. But you can rely too much, and the U.S. News ranking has for decades rewarded schools that rely heavily on this number. The question is who will contribute to the class in law school and go on to do good work, not who did best on one structured, high-pressure test.
Wrote Fariha Amin, "a full-time worker and mother to a 6-year-old son," quoted in "Law School Accrediting Panel Votes to Make LSAT Optional/Legal-education community has been divided over testing requirement and its impact on diversity in admissions" (Wall Street Journal).
And here's a quote from John White, chair of LSAC’s board of trustees: "This proposal will be highly disruptive. The change won’t be worth it, and we won’t get the diversity we are looking for."
I wonder how he knows... how he thinks he knows.
There's also council member Craig Boise, dean of Syracuse University College of Law: "I find the argument that the test is necessary to save diversity in legal education is bizarre."
How is it "bizarre"? It's something I've heard for more than 30 years. (I was a lawprof for more than 30 years, and I often served on the admissions committee. I've read many real applications and seen the relationship between LSAT scores and other aspects of an applicant's qualifications.)
The LSAT produces a hard number, and it feels secure to rely on such things. But you can rely too much, and the U.S. News ranking has for decades rewarded schools that rely heavily on this number. The question is who will contribute to the class in law school and go on to do good work, not who did best on one structured, high-pressure test.
Thus articles "I would hate to give up on my dream of becoming a family lawyer, just due to not being able to successfully handle this test."
You now read the article "I would hate to give up on my dream of becoming a family lawyer, just due to not being able to successfully handle this test." with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2022/11/i-would-hate-to-give-up-on-my-dream-of.html
0 Response to ""I would hate to give up on my dream of becoming a family lawyer, just due to not being able to successfully handle this test.""
Post a Comment