Is law a gatekeeping profession? The LSAT is partly to blame.
Why are there so few first-generation law students? Most students at King Hall have at least one parent who has obtained a bachelor's degree. For the incoming class of 2023, only 28% of students are first in their family to graduate college. There are a number of obstacles when applying to professional school as a first-generation college graduate, but speaking from my own experience, the LSAT is one of the largest obstacles.
An applicant's LSAT score is arguably the single most important factor in getting accepted into law school. The median LSAT score at King Hall for the incoming class of 2023 is a 165. LSSSE data reveals that 43% of first-generation students scored below a 151 on the LSAT, compared to continuing generation students who only had 26% of students scoring under a 151. A strong correlation exists between LSAT score and whether your parents obtained a college degree. What is it about the LSAT that makes it more difficult for first-gen students to get scores on par with their continuing generation counterparts?
For one, taking the LSAT is expensive. The test itself costs $215. But if you want to make your test scores visible to law schools, you will need to make an account with the credential assembly service (CAS), which costs $195. Then, you will have to submit a CAS report for each school you apply to. This costs $45 per school. Most people apply to about 10-12 law schools, thus adding another $500 or so to the total cost. Just taking the test and making it visible to law schools costs an applicant nearly $1000. This doesn't even include the cost of studying for the LSAT, which can cost anywhere from $800 to $4000 for prep courses alone. From a financial standpoint, the LSAT is a major barrier for poor applicants
Another factor that makes the LSAT inaccessible for many first-generation students is the lack of cultural capital they have to navigate such a test. The LSAT is unlike any test I have ever taken. The LSAT doesn't test your knowledge of a subject. You cannot memorize the test. It is designed to test your ability to think like a lawyer. In order to do well on the test, one must train their brain in a particular way. It made me think about issues in ways I had never thought about them. For many of us, if we have made it to law school, it is fair to assume that we were at least decent at taking tests and getting good grades throughout our educational careers, and I assumed that those skills would translate to the LSAT. They did not. Studying for the LSAT was like learning a new language. I didn't realize this until I began studying. I didn't have anyone to prepare me for that. I also didn't know that studying for this test was supposed to be a full time job. or that people were expected to spend a year studying for this exam. I spent a month and a half studying for the LSAT. it wasn't until I got on the subreddit, r/lawschooladmissions that I got an understanding of how others were approaching the LSAT
Between the financial barriers and cultural ones, the LSAT caters to continuing-generation students. When a test score has such a substantial impact on admissions success, it is no surprise that there are far fewer first-gen students compared to their continuing generation counterparts.
This leaves me with a question: does the LSAT test for success in law school, or does it test how many resources one has at their disposal?
Labels: class, higher education, law school
posted by Taylor Brown @ September 11, 2023
4 Comments
4 Comments:
Reading your post made me reflect on my journey to law school and whether or not my LSAT experience was reflective of the circumstances discussed in your post. I spent a large amount of money on various tutors and took the LSAT multiple times when those in worse financial situations would be unable to afford similar prep materials or be only able to take the exam once. While I agree with your post that the LSAT is probably not a good indicator of law school performance, I find myself unable to think of a better alternative that would be more fair, as standardized testing has become the norm across the world for access to educational facilities.
It's a shame that the LSAT plays such a large role in law school admissions when undergrad GPA is far better metric to measure future success of students. For me, I had a perfect GPA in college yet my LSAT score barely broke into the 160s. To even get to that point was a struggle. I hired a private tutor for a rate of $180 and was able to dedicate numerous hours a week to taking practice tests and classes. Without those resources at my disposal, I probably wouldn't have had a good enough score to get into a school as respectable as Davis, keeping me from going to law school all together. It was because of my privilege that I made it here.
Agreed. The LSAT alone was the reason that I didn't go to law school after undergrad and chose to pursue something else instead. Not only is it expensive to prepare for, I was extremely intimidated by the nature of the test. All to say that it DEFINITELY serves as a barrier.
When I announced I would be going to law school, I did not realize one barrier to admission would be the LSAT. Currently, the LSAT has become a hot topic among law schools, especially given debates about whether the test should be optional. A New York Times article by Jacey Fortin (“Do Law Schools Need the LSAT? Here’s How to Understand the Debate”) describes one hesitation in removing the LSAT comes from the fear of losing diversity. However, students of color and first-generation students are already affected by the LSAT. It begs the question of whether the law school admission process should change the way they admit students and still find ways to preserve diversity.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home