SUBJECT:
LSAT EXEMPTIONS
PURPOSE:
This briefing note is a recommendation for changes in policy pertaining
to the requirement of the LSAT prior to matriculation into law school.
ISSUE:
There is too much restriction on law school matriculation caused by the
LSAT exam.
Background:
Examinations are an important measure to
ensure standards are being met. By
administering these examinations, those that have not met requirements needed
for specific professions are then not permitted to proceed. These students have options to retake these
examinations. The LSAT stands for Law
School Admissions Test. This is the
examination law school hopefuls need to take in Canada prior to entry into law
school. The LSAT consist of several
sections including reading comprehension, logical reasoning and verbal reasoning. It is then concluded with an essay. The LSAT is a standardized test administered
globally and it is designed to funnel out those that do not possess the
critical thinking skills required for a profession in law. The LSAT looks exclusively at an individuals
academic capability however, it misses the ability to assess experience. Experience builds expertise and through
expertise people become proficient. People
experience such relations not limited to problems in the work place, issues
with the law and concerns with the government throughout their life. This all then builds on the idea of lifelong
learning a property of polytechnic knowledge.
The LSAT does not factor in a person’s experience, a critical aspect of
polytechnic learning. Hands on
experience is an important factor to consider when in relation to matriculation
to law school which is why law schools ask prospective students for their
resumes and references. Furthermore,
this polytechnic knowledge serves as a measure for practical application of
learned concepts in school.
Considerations:
It is a stated fact that standardized
examinations serve to better the selection pool. However, we need to take a closer look at the
ranks of law schools to see if LSAT’s have any effect. The UK doesn’t mandate LSAT’s for their
prospective students. According to times
higher education, of the top ten law schools, there are four based in the UK. There are however 6 based in the USA. This means that the LSAT provides at least
some benefit to learning law. As
mentioned, it makes the selection pool more competitive however, the drawback
is the fact that this competition may cause a lack of diversity. With competition, people are competing to
meet a standardized mold set out by the Bar Association. By conforming to such mold, those hopefuls
that do not conform to said mold but have the necessary experience or expertise
people get disadvantaged. The main stakeholders
for this matter are the students, the universities and the Bar Association and the
Law Society. Each party has a role to
play in the process of law school.
Options:
Option 1:
Exempt those above age 40.
Those that are above the age of 40, need to
be exempt from the LSAT requirement because they have seen enough of society to
help the progression of the profession of law.
Those above the age of 35 are highly experienced, these people possess
not only life experience but work experience.
They have been through a lot and have seen a lot which then through
these experiences have come to develop the technical skills required for the
management of situations and people.
According to scientific research the brain fully develops at age 25,
this is the point when individuals are fully aware, consented and
informed. By requiring age 19 – 39, to
write the LSAT, it would ensure that those in the stage of their life as
according to Erikson’s Stages of Development are in stages of their life that
is appropriate for LSAT examination. Let
us take a look at the age range from 18 – 35 followed by 35 – 65 age
range. By looking at the roles played by
individuals of these ages, we could clearly then identify the appropriateness
of the LSAT. According to Erikson’s, the
age range 18 – 35 is primarily concerned with forming close relationships. This
is a time where these people become fully active in the community. It is in this stage that students fully
develop their brain, 25, and it is the time where they have meaningful
opportunities to build experience into expertise through their interpersonal
situations. This means they haven’t seen
enough of the society to be able to have polytechnical expertise required of
the legal profession. By honing their
experience, they can then start to be proficient in all matters pertaining to
society. When we look at the age range 35 – 65, we see that Erikson’s claims
that this range aims to help the younger generation. Their main objective here is generativity
vs. self-absorption and stagnation. This means that these people are expanding
their personal and social development.
By exempting those above the age of 40, it can then be assured that they
have developed enough skills to be able to be knowledgeable of the society
around them as they have reached and experienced age 35 - 39. Middle aged adults see beyond their needs and
accomplishments to the need of society.
These people have had the experience managing their families and have
been working long enough to be proficient in situational critical
thinking. By exempting those age 40 and
above it serves as a guarantee that these prospective students have engaged
enough in lifelong learning. By
requiring the LSAT for those under 39, it validates that they have yet to experience
the benefits of lifelong learning a fundamental skill of polytechnic expertise.
Lastly, those above 40 are likely in complicated situations wherein they need
to provide for their families or tend to their parents. They can also be in time sensitive situations
where they require legal education. By enforcing an LSAT examination on these
people, it hampers not only their ability to come to the aid of their loved
ones but the ability to benefit society in general. If you recall Erikson’s states that these
people’s objective is generativity. The
LSAT serves to undermine this by depriving these people of not benefiting
society via a law degree. Isn’t it not
the purpose of the legal profession to come to the legal aid of people in
need. By giving legal support, aren’t
legal professions exercising generativity?
It then becomes evident that this hurdle of the LSAT, is only really
beneficial if administered to those under 39.
This option is feasible however, it would
require a lot of verifying of age.
Involved parties would have to organize infrastructure to accommodate such
change. This is sustainable because it
allows those that are older to come to the aid of those younger via the
creation of a wider perspective of case law.
The case law that is created will evidently allow for more equitable
laws to be enforced. There could be
issues in relation to equality. Students
that are below the specified age may view this policy as preferential
treatment.
Option 2:
Exempt those that attended a polytechnic university.
Polytechnic universities teach their
students valuable skills they need in order to succeed in society with their
chosen profession. These classes are a
mixture of modular learning modules and practicums or preceptorships and apprenticeships. The modular method of learning allows
students to have a grasp of the theory being taught by instructors. Through modular learning instructors can choose
to have students complete various learning activities so that students can reciprocate
what it is that have learned. Learning
activities include lectures, seminars, group work, essays, presentations
etc. The purpose of the learning
activity is to afford the students a given duration at which they can show
mastery of the concepts in class.
Polytechnic universities teach students the skills they need to perform
in their field. For example, during apprenticeship,
students are sent to the field so they can get hands on experience of their
chosen profession. These skills are
valuable and the Bar Association should recognize the work of polytechnic
universities as a substitute for the LSAT. Further we advise that other universities
consider this request as these students were educated in a way that gives them experience.
This option is not very feasible. What university would accommodate this
especially since they are all competing for students and recognition. Universities also compete for citations. A lot of cooperation would have to be negotiated
if this option is selected. As with the
former option, problems with equality arise.
From a sustainability stand point, hands on learning provided in
polytechnic universities can allow the practice of law to be more
efficient.
Option 3: Exempt those that have made vetted contributions to their profession.
It is
clear that there are people out in society that have ascertained numerous awards
in the community. Awards can be valedictorian
or summa cum laude etc. Awards also come
in the form of bursaries or grants from such institutions as the Notary
Foundation etc. If these hopefuls have
evidence of their achievement and have a degree, they shouldn’t be implicated
with the inconvenience of the LSAT. Their
hard work should actually be rewarded.
Using exemption as a reward will allow a more competitive academic landscape. Through a reward mechanism, people feel good
about something and if rewarded adequately, they will persist and repeat results
which can really only benefit the profession of law.
This option is the most feasible. It is very convenient to see who has done
well in their classes as universities keep track of their students. Disclosed grades are a very common practice
in academia. For those that have made
other achievements, it will be a challenge to provide evidence. Institutions must be diligent in checking and
verifying these. From a sustainability
perspective, these students, provided with rewards, will have a higher
probability of replicating results.
Option 4: Exempt those with extenuating circumstances.
Not only those older than the age of 40
should be excluded but those hopeful students that those that were marginalized
or even the disabled. Further, we would
go on a limb to say that turned criminals should be considered for law school. By
exempting these people, the practice of law could therefore expand because
there are multiple points of view, multiple experiences, and expertise. It is often said that working in a group
allows for collective action to take place.
More ideas are generated, and groups become more efficient. By having a broad perspective, the legal
profession can progress. The adversarial
nature of law allows for those who provide more compelling arguments to win
each case. Through a broad perspective,
the legal profession can improve the database of case law already in
existence. By improving case law, we can
have more equitable laws that are considerate of the people. The profession of law as it stands today,
excludes so much of the population. This
has really narrowed down its perspective.
What the legal profession lacks therefore is diversity.
It could be argued that by providing
exemptions the quality of the practice of law will be reduced. The quality of law is really very individual
and subjective. If you win a case, you
will think that the practice of law is great.
Such is the case with many false insurance claims for vehicle
accidents. However, the true quality of
the practice of law lies with the people.
Are the laws produced appropriate or even fair? Are the laws supporting a specific class in
society? What is needed to bring equity
to the practice of law? Law focuses on
justice and not equity. It is this justice
that has served to make a narrow view. It
has been used as a method to marginalize many.
But it has truly kept the society civil and that’s the foundation by
which the West became great. Now that
civility has been socialized, it is time to come together to make diversity
happen. As mentioned, diversity brings
new perspectives. The world going
forward is going to be a place of globalization. By accepting the fundamental proponents of
globalization, the Bar Association takes note of the diversity of culture. Each culture has customs and traditions
passed down from generations and these affect the type of landscape in that
specific country thus creating laws. By
accepting diversity, the Bar Association is going to be well prepared for the
future of the practice of law.
Therefore, we advise that those who experienced extenuating
circumstances be exempt from the LSAT.
These include and are not limited to such persons as the disabled, those
that lived in poverty, refugees, turned criminals, victims of crime and
etc. These people provide valuable experience
that can broaden the perspective of the practice of law.
This is the least feasible option
available. Universities would need a lot
of proof of the students past. Some of
this information is perhaps unavailable.
However, there are ways to gain the evidence needed to allow these
people to be excluded from the LSAT.
This option is very sustainable because it allows for a practice of law
that is wide and far reaching. It is so
because of various and multiple perspectives or input. This will result in better laws which would
evidently aid society at large.
Option 5:
Mixture of options 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Not very feasible and it is difficult to
cherry pick each circumstance. Perhaps
approaching this in stages would make it easier for educational institutions,
the Bar Association and the Law Society to adjust to the proposed
exemptions. This option is sustainable
however, a target demographic for exemption must be well established to reap
the benefits of more perspectives to law.
Option 6: Status quo.
This is the most feasible. There is no issue with how law school is
administered in Canada. In fact, the LSAT
keeps the student pool competitive.
However as mentioned the draw back here is the lack of diversity which
is a major issue going forward as states transform via globalization and
penetrate trans national borders. This
is the least sustainable option.
Currently, there is a transfer occurring in the world. This is the transfer of skills from western
nations to others. This will allow other
nations to speed up their development.
By accepting diversity, the Bar Association and the Law Society takes
advantage of this so called, “skill transfer,” and keeps the practice of law competitive
in a global scale. There are
universities in South Africa, China and Singapore that are on the top list of law
schools to attend. This should serve as
a warning to the West, that other nations are rising. Are they going to act to keep their edge or
will they faulter?
Recommendation:
Option four is recommended.
No comments:
Post a Comment