Standardized Tests Challenged
By Dustin Lee

In a so-called “victory” for affirmative action advocates, the date of the lawsuit against the University of Michigan’s Law School has been delayed from August of this year to January of 2001. The reasoning behind this postponement lies in the intervenors’ request for time to more fully develop their case-a case supported by the crutch of racism, sexism, and yes, even the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT).

However, despite the utterly flawed and hypocritical nature of the racist and sexist argument - blaming racial and sexual inequalities for life’s injustices and subsequently using them to defend a policy that is by definition racist and sexist - the most striking aspect of their crutch proves the extent to which these socialistic, hate-mongers will push to preserve their always vague definition of “diversity.”

Claiming that standardized tests such as the SAT, ACT, LSAT, et al, unfairly discriminate against “under-represented” minorities, the lawsuit intervenors challenge the use of such tests as an indication of academic merit. And while almost everyone will agree that these tests are far from perfect, they are for the time being, the best way to differentiate among incoming students. 

In fact, the LSAT is not only designed to differentiate students by means other than undergraduate grade point averages, but it is also the most heavily weighted aspect of a potential law student’s application-approximately twice the weight of a student’s undergraduate GPA. In effect, the LSAT accounts for at least fifty percent of a future law student’s chance of gaining acceptance. This figure starkly contrasts the weight given to the SAT in undergraduate admissions: At the U-M, a perfect score on the SAT (1600) gives a potential student twelve points towards admission, while a score on par with the national average (1000) gives the student ten points. Thus, only a two-point difference, or about two percent of the total needed to gain admission to the U-M, separates the most average student from the most superior. 

Despite the percentile disparities between law schools and undergraduate schools, the fact remains that these tests do not measure intelligence; rather, they measure a student’s ability to reason. This is especially true for the LSAT - it is, in actuality, the only test wholly devoted to logical reasoning in one way or another. So why do advocates of affirmative action cry foul with the mention of these “racist” tests? Simply, because certain racial groups tend to perform better than others; namely, Asians and Caucasians over African Americans, Latino/as, and Native Americans. 

But what’s so wrong with this? One group has to perform better than another. And if we take away the ability to differentiate among people, then we take away the best way for law schools to determine who will do well. Numerous studies have proven, and law schools cannot deny, that students who score better on the LSAT also perform well their first year of law school. 

Besides, students who plan to attend law school usually take the LSAT after having completed three to four years of college. These are not students fresh out of high school, lacking the personal experiences and academic resources to perform well on the SAT. That is “almost” excusable. And it’s also the reason why the SAT only counts for two percent-if we differentiate between the highest scores and those on the national average-of your admission to undergraduate programs. Conversely, students applying to law school are guaranteed to have had a broad range of experiences and equal access to academic resources.

Thus, any arguments against the use of standardized tests, especially those against the LSAT, are nothing more than liberal rhetoric at its worst. Moreover, even if the LSAT could be eliminated from the admissions process, law schools would have little else on which to base their decision. Colleges and majors vary immensely, and therefore undergraduate grade point averages are difficult to rank and distinguish in any practical manner. And while leadership activities, community service distinctions, and academic awards serve to advance the applicant’s opportunity for admission, who among the other applicants didn’t do likewise?

Standardized tests such as the LSAT are more than nice tools by which law schools can measure every applicant on an equal basis. They are a necessity. The LSAT differentiates between the applicants who learned how to reason during their undergraduate career and those who did not. At the university level, we all have the same opportunities and access to the same resources. No excuses.