It’s been awhile since I have posted anything about law school, about three months to be exact. However, today I came across something that I feel needs to be written about. In the recent weeks, I’ve decided that despite my terrible experience with the LSAT, I still really want to be a lawyer. I can’t seem to scratch that legal itch that I have. Now of course, some of you may be thinking, “Oh that’s great!” And it is, to some extent. However, it also sucks; in order to do this, I have to take that bleeping LSAT again. Or do I?
In a desperate attempt to try and ease my worried mind, I decided to ask Google a question I assumed I knew the answer to. “Is it possible to get into law school without taking the LSAT?” Again, I assumed I knew the answer would be “no” but what if there was some extreme special circumstance where it was possible? What I found was surprising. So surprising that I said out loud, “WHAT?” when I saw it.
I saw a blog post that said one of the proposed new changes that the ABA considered in June was to allow law schools to admit 10% of their students to their schools without having taken the LSAT. This is when I cried, “WHAT?” I thought it might be a little too good to be true so I looked into a little further. This is the exact wording of the change:
The proposed Interpretation provides that a law school may admit no more than 10% of an entering class without requiring the LSAT from students in an undergraduate program of the same institution as the J.D. program; and/or students seeking the J.D. degree in combination with a degree in a different discipline. Applicants admitted must have scored at the 85th percentile nationally, or above, on a standardized college or graduate admissions test, specifically the ACT, SAT, GRE, or GMAT; and must have ranked in the top 10% of their undergraduate class through six semesters of academic work, or achieved a cumulative GPA of 3.5 or above through six semesters of academic work.
Okay. So going down the list of requirements: Well CSU doesn’t have a law school unfortunately, next. I wasn’t planning on getting another degree simultaneously but I suppose I could consider it. What’s next? Oh great, another test score. Another number that simply measures how well you can bubble in an answer. Great. Next! Oh okay, because I chose to have a life in college and take rigorous classes that were not easy A’s, I am still stuck taking this God forsaken test which in no way shows how passionate I am about the law.
This is such crap I can’t even stand it. Another link I came across during this research was one that I thought I would have agreed with, but was actually one that proved to be enraging to me. I sat there reading, thinking, “How dare you? You pompous ass.”
First of all, do we really distinguish between “smart” and “not smart” students by their scores on a standardized test now? Secondly, who are you to say that because my LSAT score was less than a 160, I am not “smart and hardworking enough” to go to law school? Maybe I’m too hardworking. Maybe I didn’t score so as high as I could have because I was a full time student while working two jobs and didn’t have time to study three hours everyday for the LSAT. I studied as much as a could for a year for that test. And could I have studied more? Yes. But I didn’t want to drive myself and those around me crazy. So forgive me for trying to balance school, work, friendships, a relationship and my family with the ever-important LSAT. That in no way means that I don’t want it or didn’t work as hard as the people who scored better than I did. “So the smart kids got the memo.” Really? I’m willing to bet that the people who took the LSAT “got the memo” as well but instead of saying “Oh forget that, I want a job where I’ll be rich!” like the “smart kids” Weissmann refers to, they decided that those statistics didn’t matter to them. That law was what they wanted to do and that they were going to make the long trek uphill to get there regardless. And maybe that’s what makes them more hardworking than these so called “smart kids.”