Constitutional Law

Profs Push New Test For Law School Admissions

Is it possible for a test to determine which law school applicants would make strong attorneys?

Professors at the University of California, Berkeley tell The New York Times that they've come up with such a test. The professors, Marjorie M. Shulz and Sheldon Zedeck, argue that their test would better predict attorney performance than the Law School Admission Test (LSAT). The Times reports that the test 'includes questions about how to respond to hypothetical situations.' For example, the professors' test might describe a company with a policy requiring immediate firing of any employee who lied on an application, then ask what a test taker would do upon discovering that a top-performing employee had omitted something on an application.'

The newspaper notes that the LSAT focuses largely on determining analytical skills of applicants. Professor Shultz says she began to work on a new test after California voters approved a ballot measure banning consideration of race in admissions. 'Proposition 209 and the reduced number of minority admits prompted me to think hard about what constitutes merit for purposes of law school admission, and to decide LSAT was much too narrow, as well as having big adverse impact,' Shultz said. A spokesperson for LSAT said that 'it would be difficult to predict success as a lawyer prior to law school.'

Full post as published by ACS Blog on March 11, 2009 (boomark / email).