Starting 2025

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5237983&forum_id=2#45514137)

The LSAC already gives poors free LSAT online prep materials for one year and can register for two LSAT exams at no charge. There's no excuse for doing poorly on the test other than sheer laziness or stupidity.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5237983&forum_id=2#45514174)

When you get two of the idiots together, they can lead judges to make bad law.

They're more annoying to deal with than smart lawyers.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5237983&forum_id=2#45514987)

The House of Delegates thwarted the same rule change in 2018. The council approved removing the testing requirement but withdrew it just moments before it was to be considered for final approval by the House of Delegates.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5237983&forum_id=2#45514191)

https://youtu.be/sIRDCR8xSO0

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5237983&forum_id=2#45514220)

That said I fully agree with the sentiment that there are tons of things that 105-120 IQ people do well—far better than I do them—that constitute “legal work.” But the ability to perform that work is not why firms and megacorps tend to prefer higher IQs. You keep the 135+ IQ people around for the times when something that’s intellectually taxing needs to be worked quickly, to make clients feel better about the high cost of lawyers, and because they keep the 115 IQs humble and focused on proving their worth by working harder. The times when you actually need a 135+ happen relatively rarely at a law firm and like 1/10th as often inhouse, but when they do it 1) avoids bigger problems and 2) maintains order to have a sufficient stockpile of legit smart people.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5237983&forum_id=2#45514819)

also i think the ABA requires schools to provide information about their admissions process. if a school drops the LSATs but will consider them if voluntarily submitted, does that get publicly reported?

i assume the schools are war gaming how to game the brave new world.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5237983&forum_id=2#45514289)

YLS could have a 50% black class if they really wanted it. but what YLS wants most of all is the utter cream of the crop whites and asians based on credentials -- and the best hispanic and black candidates it can attract regardless of credentials. so they have to keep lying.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5237983&forum_id=2#45515375)

Despite its ruling, individual law schools are still free to require an admissions test.

The ABA's move comes as Yale and Harvard withdrew from US News & World Report's law school ranking system, criticizing its heavily reliance on LSAT and GRE testing scores that they argued hurts low-income applicants.

The woke law schools argued that many lower scorers on the LSAT can't afford exam prep courses and guides, and schools that admit the poor test takers are penalized by ranking lower on the prestigious US News list.

However, proponents of the tests fear that dropping the exams altogether may not actually help promote diversity but instead benefit wealthy applicants.

Woke school dean Heather Gerken argued that the system incentivizes schools to give aid to those who get high scores rather than for the low-income applicants who need it more.

Gerken said the current list devalues programs aimed at providing aid for low-income students and programs that encourage low-paying public interest jobs.

'The U.S. News rankings are profoundly flawed,' Gerken said in a statement. 'They disincentivize programs that support public interest careers, champion need-based aid, and welcome working-class students into the profession.

'Its approach not only fails to advance the legal profession, but stands squarely in the way of progress.'

With about 20 percent of the overall ranking score based on median LSAT or GRE test scores and grad-point averages, Gerken said the ranking hurts school that admit students who couldn't afford the test-prep courses and scored lower points.

Conversations over the testing requirement became heated over the spring, when the lack of diversity in women and people of color in law became widely reported upon.

In written comments submitted to the ABA in May, a prospective law student named Fariha Amin, said the LSAT remains the primary hurdle for her dream job.

Amin, a full-time worker and mother of a 6-year-old boy, noted that despite taking tutoring courses, her scores were still not enough for law schools to admit her.

'I would hate to give up on my dream of becoming a family lawyer, just due to not being able to successfully handle this test,' she wrote.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5237983&forum_id=2#45514546)

everyone is fuming mad about the bar exam and think it should be abolished, and if you disagree you will be mass downvoted

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5237983&forum_id=2#45516233)

144 = azn males

152 = white males

154 = azngirls

170 = messicans

178 = yasss kween go slay! black females

180 = tranny minorities of size

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5237983&forum_id=2#45515032)

but there are innumerable advantages to coming from a wealthy family versus a poor one. from quality of upbringing, primary school, etc.

but all of this is beside the point because they are doing this for racial diversity. if they went to correct for access to test prep and other economic factors than they would be balancing based on the wealth/income of parents, which is what the plaintiffs in the harvard case were arguing for. but the fact is that if they did that it would enormously benefit poor whites/azns.

the black folx getting into the t14 are primarily carlton banks type patagonia nigs that already have access to good test prep. this whole thing is a farce and they know it. all this is going to do is benefit privileged blacks who are already benefiting from countless boosts. meanwhile, ghetto nigs making it to the t14 is still going to be vanishingly low.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5237983&forum_id=2#45516296)

Does any of that seem like a well-functioning meritocracy to you?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5237983&forum_id=2#45516346)