Picked up on an interesting post from the Wall Street Journal concerning recent changes to the LSAT. A law professor and a psychologist at UC Berkeley examined the test and concluded that an alternative is in order. Here’s two excerpts:
They say the LSAT, with its focus on cognitive skills, does not measure for skills such as creativity, negotiation, problem-solving or stress management, but that they have found promising new and existing tests from the employment context that do.
We “need lawyers with the kind of skill sets that the world needs — like empathy, persuasiveness and the willingness to have the courage to do the right thing — which the LSAT does not measure,” said Jeffrey Brand, dean of the University of San Francisco School of Law.
I can only imagine what the people who scored above 160 would say about this! Specifically regarding the second quote, my opinion is that if you don’t have those “skill sets” such as empathy, persuasiveness, or courage before you get to law school then you might want to question yourself on why you want to go to law school in the first place. Unless people think law school will magically imbue these qualities into you – which it won’t. Certainly law school will teach you to think like a lawyer, master IRAC, and give you training in professional ethics and responsibility, but I see no reason why a standardized test should measure the character of a law school applicant. That’s why they invented personal statements!