The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
From Clayton Kozinski (Newsweek); seems quite right to me. An excerpt:
[S]tudies have consistently shown that LSAT performance is the single strongest predictor of academic success in law school….
Criticisms of the LSAT largely echo criticisms of standardized tests more generally.
Essentially, they boil down to the claim that the LSAT does not objectively measure ability because children from wealthy backgrounds can more easily afford elite prep courses and personalized tutoring.
It certainly seems unfair that such a significant portion of the admissions criteria favors the wealthy. But even critics of the LSAT concede that the same is true of nearly every other component of the admissions process. The wealthy can hire tutors to improve their GPA and snag better recommenders. And they can pack in more extracurriculars because they are less distracted by resource requirements.
LSAT opponents know all this. So why do they still single out the LSAT?