Spring 1999
Table of Contents
Notes from the Editor
President's Message
Washington's War on Standardized Tests
Beyond GPA and the LSAT: New Factors for Admissions Decisions
Improving the Validity of Law School Admissions: A Pre-Law Curriculum
Happenings in the Profession Notes on LSAT Preparation
Tips for LSAT Accommodated Testing Candidates
Legal Education for the 21st Century: A Review
Odds and Ends
The Boston College NAPLA Locator is not included online.
top
Notes from
the Editor
© Copyright, Northeast Association of Pre-Law Advisors, Inc.
All rights reserved.
Summer offers the opportunity to straighten up the office and to take stock of our accomplishments. For NAPLA, it is, as well, a transition period, marked by wrapping up the details from the June Conference-pictures of the June Conference can be found in our centerfold-inaugurating the new team of officers, and preparing for the 1999-2000 year program. Early in the Fall, the second edition of the NAPLA Pre-Law Advisors' Handbook will be available, thanks to the leadership of Jeanne Dillon and our other volunteers. Jane Levy, the president-elect, will be busy putting together plans for Conference 2000 to be held June 7-10, 2000 at Suffolk University School of Law. Although NAPLA has met four times before in Boston (twice each at Tufts University and at Boston College), the meeting at Suffolk represents the first time that NAPLA will meet in downtown Boston, the "hub of the universe," "the Athens of America." It is rumored that, in addition to opportunities to tour local law schools, there will be a supervised expedition of the depths of Filene's Basement with a preparatory program designed to bring members up to speed as to the "automatic discount" policy that operates in this holy shrine of bargain shopping. Suggestions and volunteers for panels should be sent to Jane Levy at Cornell. Nominations for officers and members of the executive committee should be forwarded to Bruce Auerbach at Albright.
Recently, both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal have reported on a proposed United States Department of Education initiative that may have implications for the use of the SATs for undergraduate admissions. It is not a long jump from this action to the possibility that the federal government might take similar steps regarding law schools' use of the LSAT. If this were to happen-and it should be noted that officials with D.O.E. allege that the criticisms of its action have been blown out of proportion by opponents of affirmative action-this, and the fallout from the Hopwood decision, probably pose the most serious challenge to the LSAT's major role in the admissions process. Reprinted in this issue of the Notes from the WSJ is the article that triggered much of the current discussion on the issue. The authors are Chairman Edward Blum and Executive Director Marc Levin of the Campaign for a Color-Blind America Legal Defense and Educational Foundation. For more information on their organization, you may contact their web site at www.equalrights.com.
For your editor, this criticism of the LSAT seems like "déjà vu all over again." Whether because of "disparate impact," or the fact that a favored student failed to perform up to the standards necessary for acceptance to a top ten law school, or just sheer orneriness, NAPLA members have regularly tried to poke holes in the Newtown establishment. The problem is that these Monday morning quarterbacks have invariably failed to proffer a viable alternative to what even LSAC admits is undue reliance on the LSAT. Beth Cobb O'Neill, outgoing Associate Executive Director of LSAC, shares a list of possible alternatives that she aired previously at the 1998 Philadelphia meeting of the Pre-Law Advisors National Coordinating Council (PLANC). Another possibility is set forth in an article by your editor. This piece grows out of ideas I originally explored at the first PLANC meeting.
In the likely event there are no significant changes to the importance of the LSAT in admissions decisions and to wrap up this subject for this issue, you will find Boston College's Joe Burns' tips as to how students should prepare for the LSAT in the "Happenings in the Profession" section. Joe also keeps us up to date with the newest iteration of the NAPLA Locator. Joe's tips and the section on handicapped students and the LSAT which comes from LSAC's Kim Dempsey are examples of materials that were available to advisors who came to the successful and most enjoyable Lafayette conference. Carmela Karns and Carol Wright, we hope, are enjoying a relaxing summer, after hosting the NAPLA gang.
Please keep in mind this summer that our Longley Awards will be inaugurated during this forthcoming academic year. They will be given to the best articles appearing in the Notes for the upcoming year. The values of the awards are three hundred, one hundred and fifty, and one hundred dollars. In addition to contributing articles, NAPLA members are encouraged also to consider reviewing books of interest to advisors and admissions officers.
The publication schedule for volume XXI is as follows: Fall issue, September 30; Winter issue, November 20, Spring issue, March 20; and Summer issue, May 20.
Graham Lee
Saint Joseph's University
Philadelphia, PA 19131-1395
phone: 610-660-1753
fax: 610-660-1284
glee@sju.edu
This past June NAPLA held its twenty-seventh annual conference. I think all those who attended would agree that it was a superb conference. Pauline Harrington did an excellent job putting the conference together. Carmela Karns and Carol Wright served as co-hosts for the conference, which ran as smoothly as any I can remember. Carol was confident as to Lafayette College being an excellent site for our conference!
This will be my last presidential message. Polly Harrington takes over as president in September. NAPLA could not be in more capable hands.
NAPLA is also in good shape financially and otherwise. We have plans not only for the 2000 conference in Boston, but also for a joint meeting with SAPLA in 2001 in Williamsburg, Virginia. Between these two June conferences, the national PLANC conference will be held in November of 2000 in San Diego.
On a more personal note, I would like to thank two NAPLA members who are leaving the board this fall. Linda Cades has been NAPLA secretary for the past two years and a member of the board before that. We will miss her enthusiasm and good counsel. Dom DeLeo is also leaving the board after serving as treasurer and president. Dom has been the personification of the NAPLA spirit. His shoes will not be filled easily.
Bruce Auerbach
Department of Political Science
Albright College P.O. Box 15234
Reading, PA 19612-5234
(610) 921-7571
fax (610) 970-4737
drbruce@fast.net
Washington's
War on Standardized Tests
Edward Blum and Marc Levin, The Wall Street Journal
Reprinted with permission of The Wall Street Journal and the authors. The following article appeared in The Wall Street Journal issue of May 26, 1999.
The U.S. Department of Education has created a novel policy to close the racial performance gap on the Scholastic Assessment Test and American College Testing exams: make it illegal for colleges to use the results if minority students perform below white students. After decades of trying to bring black and Hispanic college admissions test scores up to par, the department's Office for Civil Rights has thrown in the towel.
Last week, the Chronicle of Higher Education reported that new federal admissions guidelines are circulating throughout the higher education establishment and include the following dictum: "The use of any educational test which has a significant disparate impact on members of any particular race, national origin, or sex is discriminatory, and violation of Title VI and/or Title IX, respectively, unless it is educationally necessary and there is no practicable alternative form of assessment which meets the educational institution's needs and would have a less disparate impact."
In other words, educators have been put on notice that if minority applicants are admitted to their universities in smaller numbers because their SAT scores are too low, colleges must get rid of the SAT or, at best, minimize the weight it carries. If they don't, they can expect litigation and a loss of federal funding.
The use of standardized tests in university admissions has been debated ad nauseam since 1976, the first year SAT scores were broken down by race. After hundreds of studies and countless hours of debate, one fact about these tests remains irrefutable-they are a highly reliable predictor of academic success. In fact, no other variable-grades, essays, leadership qualities or overcoming hardships-so closely correlates to the likelihood of graduation from a particular college as does the SAT.
With the introduction of these new guidelines, the Department of Education is responding to the troubling fact that only a very small number of minorities qualify for admission to one of America's top 25 universities. According to the College Entrance Examination Board, only 2,000 or so black high school graduates nationally score above 650 on both the verbal and mathematics sections of the SAT. Most elite universities require these scores, at a minimum.
The gap between black and white test takers consistently narrowed until 1991. But then the improvement in black scores stopped, and since 1995 black scores have declined. If the courts and voter initiatives to end preferential policies result in fewer minorities in the most prestigious universities, the Clinton administration is enthusiastically willing to seek and destroy their admissions standards. Meanwhile, court decisions and voter referendums affecting some prestigious public universities have abolished racial preferences, which had allowed minority students to gain admission with lower test scores.
Will Washington's next target be the standardized tests used for professional certification? The racial disparities here are just as wide. For example, a 1994 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that just 49% of black medical students passed the first part of the National Board of Medical Examiners test with 84% of White students. The bar exam for lawyers shows similar disparities. At the University of Texas, fewer than half of Black graduates pass the bar examon their firsttry, and many fail again uponretaking the test. (The Hopwood decisionended Texas's preferential admissions in 1997, but these figures for graduates reflect the performance of students admitted under the regime of preferences)
The business and educational establishment should not be surprised if Washington civil rights enforcers level their sights on the disparate impact of qualifying exams for accountants, engineers, stockbrokers and any other profession that requires a standardized test. Even the most ardent opponent of testing surely will fear the day when the stringent tests given to airline pilots and federal air traffic controllers are abolished because they have a "disparate impact."
Poor minority performance on standardized tests is a reflection of poor primary and secondary education in minority neighborhoods. But rather than address that problem by reforming teaching methods and curricula at primary and secondary schools-an approach that might alienate the teachers unions and other Clinton allies-the Education Department is shooting the messenger. The Clinton administration has fallen into the "iconography" trap that Hoover Institution scholar Shelby Steele criticizes in his latest book, "A Dream Deferred." Rather than demand greater effort and commitment from minority students, these bureaucrats are "demonizing the very principles-rigorous intellectual effort, skill mastery, grade and test performance-by which those who compete with black students are strengthened."
Whether we like it or not, higher education in America and throughout the world is greatly stratified. Elite universities have curricula that only the best-prepared and most able students can master. With these new guidelines, the Clinton administration has put the nation's finest universities on an escalator heading down. Students, parents and educators will be the losers in this race to the bottom.
Mr. Blum is chairman and Mr. Levin is executive director of the Campaign for a Color-Blind America Legal Defense and Educational Foundation.
Beyond
GPA and the LSAT: New Factors for Admissions Decisions
Beth Cobb O'Neil, Associate Executive Director, LSAC
The Law School Admission Council has long maintained that it is inappropriate for a law school to rely solely on LSAT scores and undergraduate GPA in admitting a class. Many factors should be considered in assessing applicants for admission to law school because many factors have influenced their preparation, motivation, and skills, and many factors will contribute to their skills and abilities in practice. Many of these are not measured by the LSAT which supplies information on only a narrow range of acquired reading and verbal reasoning skills associated with law school tasks.
In that same sense, a grade point average alone only tells a portion of the story about undergraduate preparation. Behind the GPA law schools should consider, for example, major field, range of courses, course difficulty, academic load, school attended, graduate work, other concurrent responsibilities, and age of grades. And, certainly they are especially interested in applicants who have made an effort to prepare for law school by taking challenging courses related to law such as economics and philosophy, or, for that matter, any rigorous and demanding curriculum.
In a recent initiative, the Law School Admission Council is preparing a workbook for law schools that encourages, and provides models, on how to use the test correctly. It suggests that schools might, for example, consider evidence in a file of the factors listed below, and encourages schools to use the same process for every applicant, regardless of LSAT score or GPA. A recent poll of law schools admission professionals indicated either current usage of these factors, or a desire to place more of them into the mix when undertaking the challenging job of spotting talent in individual applicants and assembling a class. The list is not exclusive, but suggestive of the wide range of relevant factors that might be considered. The models explore ways to use them while giving appropriate weight to the LSAT. Academic factors: LSAT score(s) Undergraduate GPA
Any advanced work, other degrees
Major
Difficulty of course work
Relevance of course work to law school
Grade trends
Course loads
College(s) attended, quality of competition
English first language?
Quality of high school and prior academic experience, if known
Other test scores, if known
Number of hours worked and other responsibilities during college
Demographic and diversity factors:
Age
Gender Ethnic/ racial
Geographic residence
SES
Multi-cultural experiences
Work experience:
Position
Level of responsibility achieved
Full time, part time
Number of years worked
Type of industry or business
Evidence of follow-through ability
Law related experience or knowledge
Military status
Strong leadership and extracurricular factors:
Undergraduate leadership activities
Community leadership/accomplishments
Volunteer activities
Academic leadership and organizations
High school accomplishments
Athletic activities
Travel, foreign living and service
Accomplishments:
Special skills and talents
Debate, music, drama, writing, artistic
Overcoming/persevering in face of adversity
Significant personal accomplishments of any kind
Overcoming substantial discrimination
Helping in overcoming discrimination against others
Serving under-served communities or peoples
Evidence supporting character and fitness;, personal qualities:
Integrity
Problem solving skills
Maturity
Honesty
Compassion
Judgment
Motivation
Perseverance, tenacity
Unique perspectives
Skills and abilities:
Communication skills
Planning ability
Analytical skills
Advocacy skills
Problem solving skills
Improving
the Validity of Law School Admissions: A Pre-Law Curriculum
Francis Graham Lee, Saint Joseph's University
The law school admissions picture has changed dramatically since the first national pre-law conference was held in New Orleans in 1992. The good times stopped rolling almost immediately afterwards! The statistics, which seemed to promise ever-rising demand for law school, are now but faint memories. Even with bumper crops of freshmen entering college this fall, no one, I expect, will suggest, when we meet in San Diego in 2000, that the halcyon days of the late eighties will return.
One constant, however, that has remained on the scene is the dominance of the LSAT in the decision to admit, reject, or wait list a candidate. Indeed, the significance of the LSAT is probably even greater today than it was at the beginning of this decade. The U.S. News and World Report's rankings are one reason for this troubling development. The annual scramble for position has effectively tied the hands of most admissions officers, making the process even more mechanical than it was in the eighties.
There is an additional factor that also may contribute to the increased significance of the LSAT, one for which those advisors who are faculty members are, perhaps, partially responsible. Although we regularly importune admissions officers to look beyond the LSAT, what concrete help do we provide the admissions officer who is willing to weigh non-LSAT factors.
As individuals, we can write more detailed and franker letters, but there is always the fear that "honesty is not the best policy," particularly if we suspect or know that most of our colleagues will not be so forthcoming.
There is an alternative, as I suggested in 1992 in New Orleans: adopt a pre-law curriculum similar to the pre-med program that almost every undergraduate institution offers. The very thought of a prescribed curriculum, I realize, runs counter to what most of us-and the ABA-have argued is the appropriate preparation. Students should have a broad education, be free to choose, and bring diverse educational experiences to law school. We have all heard this, but, perhaps, it is time to admit that, in this case, "the best may be the enemy of the good."
By allowing students to take whatever courses they want, follow whatever curricula tickle their fancy, is it possible that we have created a situation in which the undergraduate transcript provides a very weak predictor of what a student can do in law school?
For me the problem with the index computed by Newtown, based on grades and undergraduate average, is not its rigidity, but the fact that, while admittedly the best predictor currently available, it still leaves considerable room for error1. Is there a better alternative?2 Clearly there is. A recent study by the United States Department of Education found that the best predictor of undergraduate success was neither grade point average nor standardized test scores, but rather the quality of a high school's curriculum.3 "It is better to take a tougher course and get a low grade than to take an easy course and get a high grade," found Senior Research Analyst Clifford Adelman.
Adelman's finding is simple common sense, but like much of what should be obvious it is something that we too soon overlook or, in fact, choose to ignore. How often have we written letters extolling students who have had a poor freshman year, but then turned their records around by earning Bs and As in their junior and senior years?4 Have we ever thought that the real factor behind these purported miracles is that freshman grades tend to be lower, freshman courses less likely to cater to student demands than upper division courses. That in fact, far from being more demanding, they are more apt to be designed to lure students with easy grades and minimum requirements. How frequently have advisors informed admissions officers that certain majors are "cake majors" at their institutions, and I don't mean home economics. We might emphasize that an unusual major offered at our school is in reality a very difficult one, but do we take the next step, and say that a very traditional major at our school is really a joke.
I am not suggesting that we suddenly become too honest. Although we will be rewarded for such actions in the next world, it is unlikely to help our advisees in this vale of tears. What I am suggesting, however, are two steps which could provide law schools with a means by which to reduce the current inordinate emphasis on the LSAT. The first is to return to the use of the LCM, the average LSAT for an undergraduate institution. Add it to the index. The second step is to prescribe a set of courses that students applying to law school should be expected to complete as undergraduates.
The LCM was once used by many law schools as a means of evaluating the weight to be placed on undergraduate grades from particular institutions. All 4.0's are not equal. A student who earns a perfect average in a school which has a LCM in the top decile probably should not be equated with a 4.0 student from an institution whose LCM average places that school in the lowest decile. Obviously, there are problems with the LCM, but not the problems that many advisors once voiced: "I can't control who takes the LSAT at my school, but another undergraduate school does." A more serious defect is that at some schools so few take the LSAT today that it would be inaccurate for those schools, but this failing does not seem to be insuperable to any competent statistician. Use it only for schools with a significantly high number of test takers. That is where the applicants are coming from anyway. In addition, add the UGM (the college's grade point average mean) to the index. Both of these suggestions were put forth many years ago by David Kaye in an article that appeared in the Journal of Legal Education.3
The more significant change, however, would be the adoption of a pre-law curriculum. United States Court of Appeals Judge and former University of Chicago Law Professor Richard Posner has suggested that every lawyer needs to know something about economics, statistics, voting theory, legislative process, political theory, jurisprudence, comparative judicial systems, and psychology. To this list, I would add Western Civilization, United States history, and Shakespeare; but, my purpose is not to advocate a particular canon. The value of a pre-law curriculum is as much procedural as substantive. To paraphrase Alexander Pope, for forms of pre-law curricula, let fools contest, what e're exists is best. The benefit, as I envision it, is consistency and comparability. It will provide reliability and, hopefully, validity, to a grading system that today offers little of either.
Most law schools draw essentially from a particular region or locality. Except for the twenty-five or so top ten law schools, they do not draw nationally. Even the "top ten" rely heavily on a certain group of reliable feeder schools. Looking at the grades earned in a pre-law curriculum would allow law school admissions staff better to compare candidates not only from those from the same school, but even to make meaningful comparisons and judgments among students from different schools. Faculty teaching courses in the program would be able to maintain the same standards that their colleagues in pre-med programs have generally succeeded in doing. An A in physical chemistry at Saint Joseph's is probably not fully the equivalent of an A in the same course at Harvard, but it is a lot closer than As in constitutional law courses at the two institutions. The physical chemistry teacher has a guaranteed market; the constitutional law teacher, currently, must compete for students. Assuming minimum competence on the part of the chemistry instructors at the two institutions, the course offered at Saint Joseph's will bear a rough equivalence to its Harvard counterpart. Few could or should hazard the same conclusion as to the comparability of elective constitutional law courses.
A pre-law curriculum need not even be identical from school to school though one would expect some overlap. The real benefits would be that one could at least be comparing students from the same school against a common benchmark and that teachers would behave differently by increasing course demands and reducing grade inflation when presented with an essentially captive audience.
Rather than crimping the ability of students interested in law school from pursuing different courses, a pre-law option might even expand their horizons. Instead of feeling, as most do, that they should major in political science, history or English as is presently the case, students could follow their interest whether it led to physics, fine arts or food marketing. They would be able to do so with less apprehension that admission committee members might harbor a prejudice against a particular major. Their performance on the standard pre-law program, in essence what at most universities would comprise a minor, would become the basic factor in breaking ties among students with otherwise similar credentials. Admittedly, there would be the need to accommodate students who happily progressed through undergraduate school with no interest in law school, and, who, ten years after graduation, decide that they want to become Portias or Perry Masons. Would they have to do what similar students who decide to join the ER staff late in life do, i.e., take the pre-med program as post-baccalaureate students. Probably not if they had stellar academic records and great LSAT scores, but the program might be helpful in choosing among those whose records are less outstanding, students, who, accordingly, would be well advised to take such courses prior to application to law school.
Finally, for those who see this as yet another barrier to minority students, the above mentioned D.O.E. study found that reliance on the quality of a high school curriculum was even better in identifying minority students who were likely to succeed in college than it was for majority students
Using the UGM and the LCM in conjunction with encouraging set pre-law curricula are really modest changes. For those who still demur, I would hope they would cease criticism of the "undue" reliance on the LSAT or any other form of standardized tests in making admissions decisions.
1 Cf., e.g., Robert L. Linn, "Test Bias and the Prediction of Grades in Law School, 27 Journal of Legal Education (1975), 306, and James C. Hathaway, "The Mythical Meritocracy of Law School Admissions, 34 Journal of Legal Education (1984), 94.
2 My greatest complaint with Newtown is that too much of the announced activities of Newtown have little, if anything, to do with improving the test or augmenting the predictive power of the index. Rather, the energies of LSAC seem to be directed largely towards both advancing a particular political agenda and serving as a recruitment service for law school members. A similar criticism was raised at the merger that created ETS. Said a critic at that time: "One of my complaints against the proposed organization is that although the word research will be mentioned many times in its charter, the very creation of powerful machinery to do more widely those things that are now being done badly will stifle research, discourage new developments, and establish existing methods, and even existing tests, as the correct ones." "The Story behind the 1947 Merger of Educational Testing Service," 14 NAPLA Notes (1992), 7.
3 David Kaye, "An 'A' is an 'A' is an 'A': An Exploratory Analysis of a New Method for Adjusting Undergraduate Grades for Law School Admissions Purposes," 31 Journal of Legal Education (1981), 233-241.
Happenings
in the Profession
Notes on LSAT Preparation
J. Joseph Burns, Boston College
What is in the LSAT?
Reading Comprehension
26-28 questions (4 passages)
35 minutesAnalytical Reasoning
22-24 questions (4 situations)
35 minutesLogical Reasoning I
24-26 questions
35 minutesLogical Reasoning II
24-26 questions
35 minutesExperimental Section
number of questions varies
35 minutesWriting Sample
30 minutes
How is the LSAT structured?
96 to 104 scored questions
3 hours 30 minutes long
Standardization is based on a formula which adds the difficulty of correct answers
No penalty for guessing
Scores based on number of correct (one right answer makes a difference)
Score scale 120-180with a median (50th percentile) of 150
normal curve
How should I prepare for it?
Get and use preparation books
Get and take practice exams(LSAT/LSDAS Booklet)
Diagnose weaknesses
work on specific types of questions
Become completely familiar with exam structure and questions
Practice efficient techniques for guessingeliminate wrong answers
Learn time management.
Practice under time pressure
Do easiest first
Take at least one full 3-1/2 hour exam under precisely timed conditions
Preparation Courses
advantages
cover entire exam
keep you on schedule
provide all materials
practice exams
give confidencedisadvantages
cost trick orientation
don't take the place of study and drill
When should I take it?
When you are fully prepared
retakes are generally averaged
June preferred
permits early application
scores will be back in time for prep and retake
generally the most time of intensive
preparation
Should I retake it?
Most retakes produce slightly higher scores
are generally averaged by law schools although the highest score is reported
If you are certain you did unusually poorly cancel test scores within five days
If your test scores were not up to practice or SAT standards
If your test scores will not get serious consideration at a school you just have to go to
Important Small Points:
If possible, visit the test center ahead of time, check location, parking, travel time, etc.
If possible, take a full, timed exam in the actual test room
Be prepared for administrative snafus
Take candy or gum for energy in later stages
Release information to pre-law advisor (yes on question 19, Sec. B of order form)
Practice LSAT Analysis
The most effective way to improve your LSAT score is to concentrate on improving your success with questions that cause you the most difficulty. First, you have to identify the types of questions, and then determine both why you chose the wrong answer and why you did not choose the right one. Follow the following steps:
1 Find the sections where your percent right was low and determine whether this was because you ran out of time or whether you just chose the wrong answer. If you ran out of time, determine whether you need to
1) re-budget your time for a particular section,
2) try to read more efficiently, or
3) skip more quickly over difficult questions to be checked later.2 Retake the test at home without any time pressure. Find the questions that you get wrong the second time as well as the first and determine if you are confused by the kind of question or by the answers. Learn to recognize the questions you have difficulty with. Practice them and their typical approaches and if you continue to have difficulty, learn to skip over (guess) these quickly when you see them.
Question Types:
Reading Comprehension
main idea
meaning of phrases
facts
inferences
organization
application in new setting
tone/attitude of authorLogical Reasoning
main point/thesis
assumptions
conclusions
principles
structure of argument
reasoning errors
impact of new evidence
explaining conflicts in factsAnalytical Reasoning
Assignment
Ordering
Grouping
Spatial
3 If you use POE narrowing answer choices to 2 or 3 and simply guess the wrong one, determine why you are choosing the wrong one, not just why the right one is right. Remember that the right answer will always be clear and unarguable, answer the specific question asked, and be more likely to paraphrase the text than repeat the exact words or phrases. If you are consistently saying to yourself, "I can see how that could be right," you are probably falling into the testmaker's trap and being distracted by the wrong answer.
4 PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE! Do every single LSAT question available in the Reserve Reading Room or from LSAC before you take the real exam.
Guessing Effectively
1 Eliminate obviously wrong answers (POE).
2 For remaining answers ask "Is there any way this could be wrong?"-ight answer will be undeniably correct.
3 Check major types of "distracting" wrong answers.a structure of argument-assumption is different from main point is different from conclusion or inference.
b Main point is almost always a logical argument, not description or examples.
c Statement is true, but irrelevant to argument (Outside info is OK in reading - never in logical reasoning).
d Quotations. Right answer is almost always a paraphrase, not a direct quote.
e Absolute v. Probabilistic argument. Absolute words (all, always, never, none, must) do not match arguments or answers that are probabilistic (most, few, seldom, often, could, might).
f Answers that "could" be true. The right answer must be true. If you find yourself saying, "I can see how that might be true," you probably have the wrong answer.
g Thought reversers. In "all of the following cannot be true except" questions, find the one that does not fit.
Tips for LSAT Accommodated Testing Candidate
o Law Services strongly recommends that documentation be sent well in advance of all deadlines listed in the current Registration and Information Book; this will give you time to submit documentation if additional information is needed.
o Make sure that your documentation includes both the Candidate and Specialist forms and other information that your specialist deems appropriate in verifying your accommodations request. Carefully consider all of the accommodations you will need to take the LSAT; this should include assistive devices. No documentation or request for a change in your approved accommodations will be considered after the last deadline for receipt of information.
o Put your full name and social security (insurance) number on each page of documentation that you submit for review (both front and back if the page is two-sided). This includes faxes and e-mail. Make copies of all documentation forwarded to Law services for your records.
o All written communication including faxes should be sent to the attention of Accommodated Testing.
o We are unable to confirm receipt of documentation due to the large number of requests. You should retain evidence of all transmittals.
o All documentation regarding accommodations including supplementary information and appeals needs to be received at Law Services by 11:59 P.M. Eastern Time on the late registration by telephone date listed in current Information Book. There are no exceptions to our deadline.
o Accommodated Testing can speak only with candidates unless written permission is provided which permits us to communicate with a third party.
o Approximately one month prior to each LSAT we will communicate with candidates in writing. The most efficient ways to reach us are through fax or e-mail. During the remainder of the year we are also available by phone.
o All test takers receive only the standard break between sections 3 and 4 unless otherwise stated in the letter of confirmation.
o Law Services reserves the right to make final judgments regarding testing accommodations. Unauthorized changes may result in the Invalidation of your score.
In order to make an appropriate decision regarding your request for accommodations, relevant historical information is essential.
Therefore, specialists should pay particular attention to the diagnostic interview section of the
Documentation Guidelines for Cognitive Disorders. The following must be included in a comprehensive assessment report: clinical summary of objective historical information, established symptomatology throughout childhood, adolescence, and adulthood as garnered from transcripts, report cards, teacher comments, tutoring evaluations, past psychoeducational testing and third party interviews when available.
Additional documentation guidelines are available at the LSAC website www.@lsac.org
Legal
Education for the 21st Century: A Review
Donald B. King, ed., Legal Education for the 21st Century (Littleton, CO: Fred
B. Rothman and Company, 1999), 585 pp., $79.95.
Donald King is a professor at Saint Louis University School of Law and a past president of the Central-States Law School Association. This volume is a compilation of speeches on legal education delivered at recent meetings of that association. The pre-publication flier suggested that "[c]ertainly [pre-law] advisors will want to be aware of the major issues in legal education. . . ." Except for an excellent summary of the issues involved in Hopwood by Professor Leland Ware of Saint Louis University and succinct statements on the impact of the MacCrate report by Robert MacCrate, the role of dean by Frank T. Read, and the accreditation process by James P. White, the thirty nine entries provide little information that is either new or useful to NAPLA members. Professor King's primary message seems to be that legal education should be expanded from three to four years. He does note, however, that at the same time, law schools need to address the issue of the cost of legal education. Not much fodder for thought for a seventy-nine dollar book!
Pre-law advisors may obtain a complimentary copy of Careers and the Minority Lawyer, a biennial publication of a division of Kaplan Educational Centers, by contacting Zack Sweet at 617-577-7790.