Image 01 Image 03

Op-Ed: ‘Go Ahead and Kill the LSAT’

Op-Ed: ‘Go Ahead and Kill the LSAT’

“It is irrelevant.”

Matthew G. Andersson is a writer and former CEO. He says we can live without the LSAT.

He writes at the James G. Martin Center:

Go Ahead and Kill the LSAT

The legal industry, and the law academy in particular, are in a high state of contention concerning one of their most protected traditions: the Law School Admission Test, or LSAT. The American Bar Association (ABA) that regulates our law-school industry is thinking of doing away with it. This exam is among the most heavily weighted student-applicant ranking methods for law schools and among the most feared and coveted competitive hurdles for law-school aspirants.

It is irrelevant.

Well, at least to those factions that want it removed as a requirement. They include a number of special interests, mostly in government, that seek to promote broad personal- and group-identity objectives. The LSAT (or any standardized test for that matter) is considered inherently biased, thereby making it a target of discrimination claims. This isn’t a bad issue to raise in general, as the test itself is rather old. More recent advances in learning theories, and even in neurobiology and brain science, can provide important new parameters of intelligence that may not be captured by standardized tests. Some biological science researchers, on the other hand, have come out fully in favor of standardized testing and explain why. This raises the obvious question as to whether the LSAT is actually outdated or if new applicants are merely going to be given a “pass” based on political criteria. (Alternately, for commercial reasons, the LSAT may, in the future, be merely a “check the box” formality, to accommodate current progressive viewpoints and to assuage law school deans.)

Debate about this issue is divided among several schools of jurisprudence, or philosophies of law, and includes questions about the degree to which law is a closed system with its own rules of reasoning.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Not only is IT irrelevant, so are most of the lawyers today. Shakespeare was right.

    Milhouse in reply to oldvet50. | October 13, 2022 at 10:48 am

    Shakespeare was right?! You mean when he wrote that lawyers are a bulwark standing between us and tyranny, and therefore the first thing a would-be tyrant would have to get rid of?!

      oldvet50 in reply to Milhouse. | October 13, 2022 at 11:00 am

      Well, lawyers are supposed to be that bulwark, but haven’t you been paying attention? The tyrants OWN the lawyers now. I think the general public sees this in the legal dramas playing out today.

      MajorWood in reply to Milhouse. | October 13, 2022 at 12:23 pm

      To be fair, this was written before Family Practice Law became a thing. They excel at creating animosity where none existed before. I suspect that two years of their training is spent perfecting the delivery of “they did what? Oh, my.”

      Pepsi_Freak in reply to Milhouse. | October 14, 2022 at 10:14 am

      You obviously have read Shakespeare and understand why he had Dick the Butcher mouth that famous line. Dick was an uneducated revolutionary and his leader (Cade)’s “brilliant” ideas (mainly price controls and giving away free stuff including free beer) are apparently the model for most of the Democrats’ platforms today.

      Dimsdale in reply to Milhouse. | October 14, 2022 at 1:39 pm

      They are a “bulwark” the way our southern border is a border.

Remove objective measures….they are irrelevant to our goals of picking and choosing based on racist policies.

provide important new parameters of intelligence that may not be captured by standardized tests

Oh, really? What might those be?

The author notes that one of the arguments is that law schools are having trouble getting enough qualified applicants.

Well, it’s generally argued that the law profession is oversaturated, not that it’s under supplied. This makes it an issue of how to sustain law schools that are churning out unneeded lawyers.

The second issue is how to kowtow to the DIE/CRT religion and recruit students who “identify correctly” but aren’t competent to get in on academic merit.

Both issues suggest to me we’d be better off with a new LSAT so difficult that no one could pass it. And the totalitarian behavior of law students at major schools, who protest free speech and the Constitution, confirms this.

    Dimsdale in reply to Durak Kazyol. | October 14, 2022 at 1:41 pm

    It is self defeating for lawyers: they are cutting their own throats by supersaturating the market with marginally qualified (being kind here) lawyers that will end up undercutting each other in the quest for clients.

    Supply goes up, price goes down.

    tbonesays in reply to Durak Kazyol. | October 16, 2022 at 3:53 pm

    “Well, it’s generally argued that the law profession is oversaturated, not that it’s under supplied. This makes it an issue of how to sustain law schools that are churning out unneeded lawyers.”

    The need for lawyers is high but the demand is low. ‘Demand’ meaning the market for paying for legal services.

The LSAT is a good predictor of academic success in law school. Consequently, it must be condemned.

it’s about “equity”–leshawn can’t even read the lsat–even if he could, he’s too stupid to pass it–because “racism”

next, of course, will be medcat–and then what ? perhaps various faa exams/qualifications ?

and what’s even more egregious is denying admission to a person who IS qualified, who has proven their aptitude through study and merit, who aced the lsat/medcat because “racism”


If the totalitarians at the ABA want to remove the LSAT, then it is crucial to keep it. In the current climate of granting preferential admission to incarcerated felons, anti-American terrorists, music majors, Nambla members and worse, I say keep it !!!!!

Is the author being sarcastic, or is he another New Age proponent who has a pet solution to this non-problem. The LSAT is a good predictor of how well an applicant will do on law school exams—and the bar exam. The only remedy for the differential performance of certain racial groups is better education for all It would also help if racial equity fanatics stopped throwing everyone into three or four bins based upon their skin color. The categories are becoming increasingly irrelevant.

I am a white military BRAT. I was never in a K-12 school long enough to develop any relationships with teachers or to play (much less become skillful) at any sport. Mostly I was bored.

Then at the end of 8th grade I took my first standardized exam – scored highest in the large school district (but did not get the prize because “you ain’t been here but a semester”) and learned that I was not “average” but a genius. Wow.

Then I attended three (3) high schools and took the SAT. I scored in the top 1%. That standardized test score got me into a top 25 University. Without guidence, I started in science/engineering first year. What a disaster because somewhere in those years at 3 high schools, I had missed out on math (notwithstanding “A’s”) in those courses.

From a 2.1 gpa first year to a 3.8 in the liberal arts honors program (the head of which saved my future by letting me in after all deadlines).

Then came the LSAT. Aced it. A top-5 law school sought me out. I went there. Wound up at the top of the class.

Now I have 45 years as a law school Professor.


If those tests could find me, they can find hidden gold nuggets of any color, heritage, or relative poverty.
Humans, I have learned in 50+ years of law practice are always BIASED. Always!!!