Leo P. Martinez
Dean Emeritus & Albert Abramson Professor of Law Emeritus
University of California Hastings College of the Law
2021-2022 Council Chair
The Section’s Council engages in an on-going and comprehensive review of its Standards to comply with its regulatory obligations. As I have noted before, this review and revision process reflects twin goals.
The first goal is to set minimum requirements for a quality legal education program. For example, the requirement of measuring student outcomes and the focus on experiential learning are oriented to improving law student education.
The second goal is to align generally with the expectations of the state supreme courts and state bar admissions processes, which accept the ABA-approved law school J.D. degree as meeting a jurisdiction’s requirements to qualify to take the bar examination. The latter is a balancing exercise with the realization that jurisdictional requirements vary, that law schools vary, and that applicants vary. As my friend Jamienne Studley, the President of the WASC Senior College and University Commission (WSCUC), has aptly observed: “The accreditation system exists precisely to allow for tailored, predictive judgments applying broad standards to infinitely varied institutions.”[1] To this I add that these judgments must be made regarding a variety of applicants as well.
At its May 2022 meeting, the Council approved sending revisions to Standard 503 out for Public Comment. The Council’s Strategic Review Committee has recommended that the Council eliminate the requirement of a “valid and reliable” admission test for individuals seeking admission as first-year J.D. degree students. This would effectively make the use of an admission test by law schools optional. It is important to note that the Council has not yet approved any revisions to Standard 503. Approval would be premature without considering further input regarding the proposed revisions.
By way of background, Standard 501 requires each law school to adopt, publish, and adhere to sound admissions policies and practices consistent with the Standards, its mission, and the objectives of its program of legal education. Moreover, Standard 501 requires law schools to “admit only applicants who appear capable of satisfactorily completing its program of legal education and being admitted to the bar.” In meeting the requirements of Standard 501, the proposed revisions to Standard 503 would allow law schools freedom to craft sound admissions policies and practices without the use of an admission test. A law school could also choose to continue the use of one or more admission tests as part of sound admissions practices or policies. Finally, a law school is still required to publish its admissions policies and practices so that applicants to the law school know what is expected of them.
As of early 2022, the Council remained the only accreditor of professional schools, including medical, dental, pharmacy, business, and architecture schools, requiring an admission test in its Standards. While this is not reason enough to change course, it is reason enough to re-examine the Council’s existing stance. Indeed, the information gathered from the Public Comment period will be useful in arriving at a result that makes sense for legal education and for law schools.
The comments received will be reviewed by the Strategic Review Committee, which will decide if it should recommend changes to the proposed revisions. The Council will then decide if it wants to approve or further revise the proposed amendments. Depending on that decision, the ABA House of Delegates, consistent with the Council’s procedures, will also have an opportunity to review the revisions. Of course, any final decision rests with the Council.
My mother long ago instilled in me the idea that the “thinnest of tortillas always has two sides.” There are good arguments on either side of the retention of an admission test. On one hand, the LSAT has been a valuable tool that allows easy comparison of applicants from a variety of backgrounds and undergraduate institutions. It has also allowed those from disadvantaged backgrounds to demonstrate aptitude for the study of law. On the other hand, eliminating the requirement of an admission test avoids the suggestion that standardized tests are the only way to identify capable students. Law schools are allowed the freedom to adopt admissions policies and practices that afford equal opportunity and diversity consistent with Standards 205 and 206. I encourage all those who have an interest in legal education to provide comments on the proposed revisions to Standard 503 so the Council can make the best decision for legal education.
[1] Jamienne Studley, Who Knew? 5 Surprises About Accreditation, https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2022/02/17/five-surprises-a…c04421-0997ce418d-234623885&mc_cid=0997ce418d&mc_eid=c2f19274b6.