This is the third in a series of posts:
(1) Guest Post — Jay Rosner: The LSAT vs. the GRE: May They Both Lose
(2) Guest Post — Kevin Washburn: The LSAT’s Key Role in Native Legal Education
I’m honored that Prof. Kevin Washburn took the time to respond to a Turtle Talk post of mine. I had deeply criticized both the LSAT and GRE, but I expressed the hope that the movement to accept both in law school admissions will subject both to the kind of scrutiny, particularly on their disparate impacts, that will be more difficult for them both to withstand.
Prof. Washburn’s post, entitled “The LSAT’s Key Role in Native Legal Education,” emphasized that “… if the LSAT lost its leading role in legal education … it could be bad. Very bad.” He then tells the uplifting story of PLSI, which has an admirable record helping 25-35 Native students each year, for decades, succeed in law school by providing them with excellent summer instruction, stipends and role models, among other supports. He clearly is a proud alumnus of that program.
Prof. Washburn’s primary defense of the LSAT is that its developer, LSAC, has played a major role in funding PLSI over the years. LSAC is to be commended for that; however, I submit that for those of us advocating fair representation in the legal profession, LSAC’s only positive attribute is its support for PLSI. Continue reading