The American Bar Association’s House of Delegates on Monday rejected a proposal to end an admission testing requirement for law schools, an action that stalls the test-optional movement for legal education but does not necessarily kill it.
Welcome back to Ahead of the Curve. I’m Christine Charnosky, legal education reporter for Law.com, and I’ll be your host for this week’s look at innovation and notable developments in legal education.
This week, we’re discussing the failed vote by the American Bar Association’s House of Delegates to allow law schools to become test-optional and pondering what’s next.
(The Free Press Journal publishes articles by study abroad consultants, Consulates, foreign universities, international students, and much more every Saturday to deliver its readers a glimpse of the world of overseas education.)
US universities often mandate tests as part of the application process. However, testing policies vary across universities, and, in recent years, many US universities have discontinued the requirement for admissions tests entirely. How do applicants to US universities know which tests to take? This article provides a roadmap to navigate US universities’ testing policies.
Test scores not the only criteria for admission
In the United States, admissions tests do not function as entrance exams in the same way as in India, and there is no universal minimum score required across all US universities. Furthermore, tests are not the only criteria considered when determining whether to admit applicants. The US admissions process is typically ‘holistic’. This means that test scores are one of several components of the admissions decision, considered alongside other elements such as school or college grades, resumes, essays, extracurricular activities and letters of recommendation.
Two major tests key to admissions in US universities
In general, there are two types of tests: those that test students’ academic potential and those that test English proficiency. On the academic side, applicants for undergraduate programmes may be required to take the SAT or ACT test. The SAT test is more popular among Indian students, though US universities usually accept both. The SAT tests maths and english, while the ACT has an additional science component.
Many applicants to undergraduate programmes also take advanced placement or AP exams to enhance their application profile. AP exam results influence course placement at the university after admission, as opposed to admissions decisions. When applying to US schools, be aware that university policies differ regarding which AP subjects receive credit, what score must be achieved, and how many credits will be given.
US university tests for graduate applicants
If you are a graduate applicant, the Graduate Record Exams (GRE) is often required. While the GRE is used for many STEM fields, it may not be required in fields like art and design, writing, or film. Though many business and law programs now accept the GRE as well, professional graduate programs sometimes require specialized tests. For example, if you are applying for business programs, the GMAT may be required. The Law School Admission Test ( LSAT) is an exam required for the JD program in law, and the MCAT is required for admission to medical school.
© Provided by Free Press Journal Deborah Rosario EducationUSA explains do's and don'ts students need to keep in mind while shortlisting US universities
Duolingo a new favourite among universities
For language tests, most international applicants to U.S. universities are required to take an English proficiency test. Some universities may waive the test requirement if the applicant has received English education for a certain number of years, but such exceptions are rare. TOEFL and IELTS are the most widely accepted English tests, and the PTE is also frequently accepted. Some universities have also started accepting Duolingo, an hour-long English test that can be taken from home, due to its accessibility.
New policies in place for universities
In the last two years, many universities have rescinded policies requiring academic tests, and three types of testing policies have emerged.
In the first case, the academic test is mandatory, and the applicant must submit the test results to be considered for admission. In the second case, universities have a test-optional policy, meaning applicants can choose whether or not to submit the test. This option creates flexibility for students who do not test well or are unable to take tests. Not submitting the test isn’t a disadvantage. Universities will then examine the other components of your application to gauge your strengths and qualifications. However, if you have taken the test and scored well, you can include the results to supplement your application.
Salil Gupta, Chief Advisor for South Asia at the University of Arizona, said that for graduate applicants, sending in test scores for a university with a test-optional policy can help students create stronger overall profiles and deliver the admissions coordinator a better grasp of their linguistic and quantitative skills. “When tests are not submitted at the University of Arizona, undergraduate admissions are based on academic scores and letters of recommendation,” he said.
According to Gupta, graduate programmes look for a strong profile, which is based on a combination of the GPA, work experience, publications, GMAT/GRE, statement of purpose, recommendations, etc.” In the case of test-optional universities, while the test is not required for admission, it may be helpful with scholarship decisions or course placement at the university.
The third policy that universities follow is a test-blind policy. Even if students submit a test score, the university will not consider it. The website https://fairtest.org maintains a record of universities that are test-optional or test-blind at the undergraduate level.
Conclusion
Clearly, US universities espouse several different testing policies. When selecting tests, the best practice is to first shortlist the universities in which you have an interest. Next, verify testing requirements on their official websites. Finally, select your tests according to what is universally accepted by the schools you have shortlisted. If choices between tests remain, you can then compare test formats. Most testing organisations provide preparation materials, trial questions, and even trial exams on their websites. By exploring these and taking a practice test, you can select the test that plays to your strengths.
Students select tests for a variety of reasons. Aniket Shendre, who is currently applying for a Master of Science in Computer Science, chose to take the GRE and submit it to test-optional universities because he felt that “the overall test judges the aptitude skills very well and I thought a good score would help my profile.” Tashna Nair, a current student pursuing a Master of Arts in Television, Radio, and Film at the University of Syracuse, chose the TOEFL because she “liked the format of the test and the way the sections were scored.”
Students with disabilities can also take these tests after requesting disability accommodations. Details on disability information related to the SAT, ACT, GRE, and GMAT tests can be found at https://www.miusa.org/resource/tip-sheets/admissionstests/
For more information, please visit the EducationUSA website (https://educationusa.state.gov), and for individual questions about direct counseling with an EducationUSA adviser, please write to USEducationQueries@state.gov
The author is currently an EducationUSA Adviser at USIEF Mumbai.
(If you have a story in and around Mumbai, you have our ears, be a citizen journalist and send us your story here. )
(To receive our E-paper on WhatsApp daily, please click here. To receive it on Telegram, please click here. We permit sharing of the paper's PDF on WhatsApp and other social media platforms.)
Under the bar association’s procedures, though, the final word on law school admission standards rests with the Council of the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, which is the association’s accrediting arm. The council last year gave the proposal preliminary approval.
“The Council is disappointed in the House of Delegates’ vote,” Bill Adams, the bar association’s managing director of accreditation and legal education, said in a statement. The council will consider next steps at a Feb. 17 meeting, he said.
The LSAT is the most widely used admission test for law schools. It assesses skills in memorizing comprehension, analytical reasoning and logical reasoning, and has long been a prime metric for gatekeepers of law schools. The LSAT poses multiple-choice questions in one part, and in a second part it prompts test-takers to write a persuasive essay under proctored conditions. More than 100,000 people take it annually.
In recent years, many colleges and universities have adopted test-optional policies for undergraduate admissions. Law schools, though, are required to use admission test scores to meet the bar association’s accrediting standards.
Critics of admission tests say they pose an unnecessary barrier to disadvantaged students who otherwise have strong potential. Proponents say tests provide useful information to admissions officers and help qualified applicants make their case. They also are often used, in combination with grade-point averages and other factors, to help decide whether admitted students will qualify for scholarships.
Even if the bar association drops the mandate for admission test scores, individual law schools still would be allowed to require them.
The debate over the LSAT comes at a moment of unusual flux and scrutiny for legal education, as many prominent law schools have declared opposition to cooperating with U.S. News & World Report’s influential annual rankings. LSAT and GRE scores have long been a part of the U.S. News ranking formula. In addition, many schools are bracing for the possibility that the Supreme Court later this year will reverse decades of precedent and end race-conscious affirmative action in college and university admissions.
Marc L. Miller, dean of the University of Arizona’s law school, said he was disappointed in the House of Delegates vote. The admissions testing requirement, he said, makes law schools “an outlier” in graduate-level professional education. And he said the mandate is “harmful for the widely shared goal of increasing diversity and access in our profession.”
They’re making their lists, checking them twice, trying to decide who’s in and who’s not. Once again, it’s admissions season, and tensions are running high as university leaders wrestle with challenging decisions that will affect the future of their schools. Chief among those tensions, in the past few years, has been the question of whether standardized tests should be central to the process.
In 2021, the University of California system ditched the use of all standardized testing for undergraduate admissions. California State University followed suit last spring, and in November, the American Bar Association voted to abandon the LSAT requirement for admission to any of the nation’s law schools beginning in 2025. Many other schools have lately reached the same conclusion. Science magazine reports that among a trial of 50 U.S. universities, only 3 percent of Ph.D. science programs currently require applicants to submit GRE scores, compared with 84 percent four years ago. And colleges that dropped their testing requirements or made them optional in response to the pandemic are now feeling torn about whether to bring that testing back.
Proponents of these changes have long argued that standardized tests are biased against low-income students and students of color, and should not be used. The system serves to perpetuate a status quo, they say, where children whose parents are in the top 1 percent of income distribution are 77 times more likely to attend an Ivy League university than children whose parents are in the bottom quintile. But those who still endorse the tests make the mirror-image claim: Schools have been able to identify talented low-income students and students of color and deliver them transformative educational experiences, they argue, precisely because those students are tested.
These two perspectives—that standardized tests are a driver of inequality, and that they are a great tool to ameliorate it—are often pitted against each other in contemporary discourse. But in my view, they are not oppositional positions. Both of these things can be true at the same time: Tests can be biased against marginalized students and they can be used to help those students succeed. We often forget an important lesson about standardized tests: They, or at least their outputs, take the form of data; and data can be interpreted—and acted upon—in multiple ways. That might sound like an obvious statement, but it’s crucial to resolving this debate.
I teach a Ph.D. seminar on quantitative research methods that dives into the intricacies of data generation, interpretation, and application. One of the readings I assign —Andrea Jones-Rooy’s article “I’m a Data Scientist Who Is Skeptical About Data”—contains a passage that is relevant to our thinking about standardized tests and their use in admissions:
Data can’t say anything about an issue any more than a hammer can build a house or almond meal can make a macaron. Data is a necessary ingredient in discovery, but you need a human to select it, shape it, and then turn it into an insight.
When reviewing applications, admissions officials have to turn test scores into insights about each applicant’s potential for success at the university. But their ability to generate those insights depends on what they know about the broader data-generating process that led students to get those scores, and how the officials interpret what they know about that process. In other words, what they do with test scores—and whether they end up perpetuating or reducing inequality—depends on how they think about bias in a larger system.
First, who takes these tests is not random. Obtaining a score can be so costly—in terms of both time and money—that it’s out of reach for many students. This source of bias can be addressed, at least in part, by public policy. For example, research has found that when states implement universal testing policies in high schools, and make testing part of the regular curriculum rather than an add-on that students and parents must provide for themselves, more disadvantaged students enter college and the income gap narrows. Even if we solve that problem, though, another—admittedly harder—issue would still need to be addressed.
The second issue relates to what the tests are actually measuring. Researchers have argued about this question for decades, and continue to debate it in academic journals. To understand the tension, recall what I said earlier: Universities are trying to figure out applicants’ potential for success. Students’ ability to realize their potential depends both on what they know before they arrive on campus and on being in a supportive academic environment. The tests are supposed to measure prior knowledge, but the nature of how learning works in American society means they end up measuring some other things, too.
In the United States, we have a primary and secondary education system that is unequal because of historic and contemporary laws and policies. American schools continue to be highly segregated by race, ethnicity, and social class, and that segregation affects what students have the opportunity to learn. Well-resourced schools can afford to provide more enriching educational experiences to their students than underfunded schools can. When students take standardized tests, they answer questions based on what they’ve learned, but what they’ve learned depends on the kind of schools they were lucky (or unlucky) enough to attend.
This creates a challenge for test-makers and the universities that rely on their data. They are attempting to assess student aptitude, but the unequal nature of the learning environments in which students have been raised means that tests are also capturing the underlying disparities; that is one of the reasons test scores tend to reflect larger patterns of inequality. When admissions officers see a student with low scores, they don’t know whether that person lacked potential or has instead been deprived of educational opportunity.
So how should colleges and universities use these data, given what they know about the factors that feed into it? The answer depends on how colleges and universities view their mission and broader purpose in society.
From the start, standardized tests were meant to filter students out. A congressional report on the history of testing in American schools describes how, in the late 1800s, elite colleges and universities had become disgruntled with the quality of high-school graduates, and sought a better means of screening them. Harvard’s president first proposed a system of common entrance exams in 1890; the College Entrance Examination Board was formed 10 years later. That orientation—toward exclusion—led schools down the path of using tests to find and admit only those students who seemed likely to embody and preserve an institution’s prestigious legacy. This brought them to some pretty unsavory policies. For example, a few years ago, a spokesperson for the University of Texas at Austin admitted that the school’s adoption of standardized testing in the 1950s had come out of its concerns over the effects of Brown v. Board of Education. UT looked at the distribution of test scores, found cutoff points that would eliminate the majority of Black applicants, and then used those cutoffs to guide admissions.
These days universities often claim to have goals of inclusion. They talk about the value of educating not just children of the elite, but a diverse cross-section of the population. Instead of searching for and admitting students who have already had tremendous advantages and specifically excluding nearly everyone else, these schools could try to recruit and educate the kinds of students who have not had remarkable educational opportunities in the past.
A careful use of testing data could support this goal. If students’ scores indicate a need for more support in particular areas, universities might invest more educational resources into those areas. They could hire more instructors or support staff to work with low-scoring students. And if schools notice alarming patterns in the data—consistent areas where students have been insufficiently prepared—they could respond not with disgruntlement, but with leadership. They could advocate for the state to provide K–12 schools with better resources.
Such investments would be in the nation’s interest, considering that one of the functions of our education system is to prepare young people for current and future challenges. These include improving equity and innovation in science and engineering, addressing climate change and climate justice, and creating technological systems that benefit a diverse public. All of these areas benefit from diverse groups of people working together—but diverse groups cannot come together if some members never learn the skills necessary for participation.
But universities—at least the elite ones—have not traditionally pursued inclusion, through the use of standardized testing or otherwise. At the moment, research on university behavior suggests that they operate as if they were largely competing for prestige. If that’s their mission—as opposed to advancing inclusive education—then it makes sense to use test scores for exclusion. Enrolling students who score the highest helps schools optimize their marketplace metrics—that is, their ranking.
Which is to say, the tests themselves are not the problem. Most components of admissions portfolios suffer from the same biases. In terms of favoring the rich, admissions essays are even worse than standardized tests; the same goes for participation in extracurricular activities and legacy admissions. Yet all of these provide universities with usable information about the kinds of students who may arrive on campus.
None of those data speak for themselves. Historically, the people who interpret and act upon this information have conferred advantages to wealthy students. But they can make different decisions today. Whether universities continue on their exclusive trajectories or become more inclusive institutions does not depend on how their students fill in bubble sheets. Instead, schools must find the answers for themselves: What kind of business are they in, and whom do they exist to serve?
© Klaus Vedfelt/DigitalVision via Getty Images Whether on paper or computerized, standardized tests may be in decline.
College admission tests are becoming a thing of the past.
More than 80% of U.S. colleges and universities do not require applicants to take standardized tests – like the SAT or the ACT. That proportion of institutions with test-optional policies has more than doubled since the spring of 2020.
And for the fall of 2023, some 85 institutions won’t even consider standardized test scores when reviewing applications. That includes the entire University of California system.
Currently, only 4% of colleges that use the Common Application system require a standardized test such as the SAT or the ACT for admission.
Even before the pandemic, more than 1,000 colleges and universities had either test-optional or so-called “test-blind” policies. But as the pandemic unfolded, more than 600 additional institutions followed suit.
At the time, many college officials noted that health concerns and other logistics associated with test-taking made them want to reduce student stress and risk. Concerns about racial equity also factored into many decisions.
Other institutions are what some call “test-flexible,” allowing applicants to submit test scores from Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate exams in place of the SAT or ACT.
Tests under fire
For many years, advocates and scholars have fought against the use of standardized tests, in general, and for college admission.
One critique is simple: Standardized tests aren’t that useful at measuring a student’s potential. Research has repeatedly shown that a student’s high school GPA is a better predictor of college success than standardized test scores such as the SAT or ACT.
But there are deeper issues too, involving race and equity.
The development and use of standardized tests in higher education came out of the eugenics movement. That movement claimed – and then used misleading and manufactured evidence to support the idea – that people of different races had different innate abilities.
“Standardized tests have become the most effective racist weapon ever devised to objectively degrade Black and Brown minds and legally exclude their bodies from prestigious schools,” according to Ibram X. Kendi, director of the Center for Anti-Racist Research at Boston University.
Kendi is not alone in highlighting the historic links between standardized tests and discrimination. Joseph A. Soares, editor of “The Scandal of Standardized Tests: Why We Need to Drop the SAT and ACT,” has documented “[t]he original ugly eugenic racist intention behind the SAT, aimed at excluding Jews from the Ivy League.” He says that goal has now “been realized by biased test-question selection algorithms that systemically discriminate against Blacks.” In his work, Soares draws attention to the practice of evaluating pilot questions and removing from the final test version questions on which Black students did better than white students.
My colleague Joshua Goodman has found that Black and Latino students who take the SAT or the ACT are less likely than white or Asian students to take it a second time. They perform less well, which contributes to disproportionately low representation of college students from low-income and racial minority backgrounds.
Those factors – as well as a lawsuit arguing discrimination based on test performance – were behind the May 2020 decision by the University of California’s Board of Regents to discontinue using SAT and ACT scores in admissions decisions.
Economics of higher education
Colleges and universities tend to seek applicants with good grades and other achievements. They are often seeking a diverse pool from which to build their classes. Colleges that did not require standardized tests in applications for students arriving in fall 2021 “generally received more applicants, better academically qualified applicants, and more diverse pools of applicants.” That’s according to Bob Schaeffer, executive director of FairTest, an advocacy group working to “end the misuses and flaws of testing practices” in higher education and in the K-12 sector.
In addition, birth rates are declining, and the number of 18-year-olds seeking to enter college is decreasing. Many institutions are seeking to make it easier for people to apply to college.
As a result of these factors, I expect to see high school students begin to choose where to apply based at least in part on whether colleges require standardized tests, consider them or ignore them entirely. According to U.S. News & World Report, most of the colleges in the U.S. that still require test scores are located in Southern states, with the highest count in the state of Florida.
The testing business
The test-taking business, including preparatory classes, tutoring and the costs of taking the tests themselves, is a multibillion-dollar industry.
As more institutions reduce their attention to tests, all those businesses feel pressure to reinvent themselves and make their services useful. The College Board, which produces the SAT and other tests, has recently tried to make its flagship test more “student-friendly,” as the organization put it. In January 2022 it released an online SAT that is supposed to be easier for test sites to administer and easier for students to take.
In recent conversations I have had in research into higher education policies, admission directors at selective universities tell me that standardized test scores have become an optional component of a portfolio of activities, awards and other material, that applicants have at their disposal when completing their college applications.
Institutions that have gone test-blind have already decided that the SAT is no longer part of the equation. Others may join them.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts.
Read more:
Mary L. Churchill does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
A long and lawyerly debate is underway at the American Bar Association over a question that could have lasting consequences for diversity in legal education: Should taking the LSAT be mandatory for people applying to law school?
Today, law schools accredited by the bar association must require applicants to take a “valid and reliable” admission test — in most cases, students take the Law School Admission Test, or LSAT. The association is considering dropping that requirement, and letting each law school decide for itself whether tests are necessary.
Opponents and supporters of the change both make arguments on behalf of diversity — a sensitive subject in the field of law, which is disproportionately white. The arguments echo other debates over standardized testing at all levels of higher education, a practice that some see as an equalizer and others see as a barrier.
What’s going on at the bar association?
The American Bar Association, a professional organization for lawyers that describes itself as the “national voice of the legal profession,” is split on the issue.
Dropping the LSAT requirement was recommended almost a year ago by the association’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, the national agency that accredits law schools. But the proposal was voted down earlier this month by the House of Delegates, the bar association’s policymaking arm.
On Friday, the 21-member council, most of whom have experience as law school administrators or professors, decided to move forward with the proposal despite the rejection by the House of Delegates, a much larger body of nearly 600 members. The House is expected vote on the matter again at a meeting in August.
After that second vote, the council would have the power to make the change with or without the delegates’ approval.
Dropping the LSAT requirement is not a new idea. The council put forth a similar resolution in 2018, but withdrew it after delegates expressed opposition. The council then devoted more study to the issue and, last year, solicited public letters; the responses were split fairly evenly for and against.
Does every law school require the LSAT now?
Already, many law schools do not require that first-year applicants submit LSAT scores. That’s because the bar association’s testing requirement can be interpreted to allow another standardized test, the Graduate Record Examination or G.R.E., to satisfy the requirement. Other, smaller exemptions also exist, but the vast majority of applicants must take one of those two tests.
Of about 200 law schools now accredited by the bar association, just over half accept applicants who have taken the G.R.E., according to Educational Testing Service, which administers the exam. It costs about $220 and tests a broad range of skills, including reasoning, math and vocabulary.
Even so, most law school applicants still take the LSAT, which consists primarily of multiple-choice questions intended to test applicants’ logic and analysis skills. This year, the exam costs $215 to take; students often spend hundreds or thousands more on test preparation.
What are the arguments for dropping the requirement?
Proponents want to deliver law schools more flexibility in how they recruit and admit students, in the hope that doing so may make a dent in the profession’s relative lack of diversity.
Research by Aaron N. Taylor, the executive director of the Center for Legal Education Excellence at AccessLex, a nonprofit organization, suggests that use of the LSAT in admissions is one of the reasons that Black aspiring lawyers are accepted to law schools at lower rates than their white counterparts.
Jeryne Fish, vice chair of the National Black Law Students Association, took the LSAT in 2019 after two months of preparation, and is now in her third year at New York University’s School of Law. She notes that the proportion of lawyers in the United States who are Black has been largely stagnant at around 5 percent for more than a decade.
Ms. Fish, 26, described the field of law as “antiquated” and said that reconsidering the LSAT would be worth a shot. “I do think it is a great first step to at least allow schools to try to do something different,” she said. “And to allow the field to do something different.”
Law school accreditation is already unusually restrictive, said Bill Adams, the A.B.A. Council’s managing director. Accrediting agencies for other professional schools, including medical and business schools, do not insist that the schools require a standardized test score from applicants.
“There has been criticism that our standards have stood in the way of schools being more creative,” Mr. Adams said.
The University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law pioneered the practice of accepting applicants with G.R.E. scores instead of LSAT scores in 2016. Marc L. Miller, the school’s dean, said the change prompted new conversations about admissions testing.
“You end up with a vast pool of new potential candidates” under his school’s new system, Mr. Miller said, adding that students also gained more flexibility in choosing which test scores to share when they apply.
The school is now developing another potential admission exam, called JD-Next. Some early research has suggested that scores on JD-Next show smaller racial disparities than LSAT scores.
What do opponents of dropping the LSAT requirement say?
Many opponents say they are open to change, but don’t want to rush. Without a standardized test, they say, law school student bodies could become even less diverse, because other criteria for deciding who to admit could turn out to be even more biased against applicants of color, as well as people from low-income families and first-generation college students.
Paulette Brown, a delegate and former member of the bar association’s council, who was also the first Black woman to serve as the association’s president, said she was undecided on the LSAT question until last week. At the Feb. 6 delegates’ meeting, she made a last-minute decision to speak against dropping the requirement.
“Every time I hear the word ‘flexibility,’ the hair goes up on my neck,” Ms. Brown said to the delegates. “Because when you talk about flexibility, that means subjectivity. And when you introduce subjectivity into any process, it provides too much opportunity for mischief.”
In other words, she said, unconscious bias could creep in. Like other opponents of the change, Ms. Brown argued that the association should wait and collect more data.
Danielle R. Holley, who is the dean of the law school at Howard University and sits on an advisory committee for the Law School Admissions Council, a nonprofit organization that earns revenue from administering the LSAT, said that the bar association could take an interim step — for example, by allowing for more exceptions to the LSAT requirement — and watch the results.
“I am very concerned that things like recommendation letters, and other types of packaging that rely on students having both information and privilege, will become the currency of the realm, instead of a more objective factor like the LSAT,” she said.
She added that if the accreditation board left the matter up to individual schools, market forces could drive law schools to drop the LSAT requirement — not out of careful consideration about best admissions practices, but as a way to compete for applicants.
Kristin Theis-Alvarez, the dean of admissions and financial aid at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, argued that law schools were already making careful choices informed by diversity goals, even with the testing requirement in place.
“I think supporters of the change,” she said, “are overlooking something experienced admissions professionals understand well: that the appropriate use of tests, as part of a holistic review process, contextualizes scores within a much larger and more nuanced qualification profile.”
What does this all mean for law students?
If the council’s proposal to drop the LSAT requirement is approved, law school applicants would probably not see any change until 2026, and even then, law schools could decide to continue to require the test.
Legal education tends to embrace change slowly, Dr. Taylor said, so altering the rule would be unlikely to create turmoil.
“But such a move could foster curiosity among law schools about more comprehensive and equitable ways to choose winners and losers in the admission process,” he added. “And that would be a good thing.”
It is still unclear what that would look like. For years, deans and lawyers on both sides of the LSAT debate have been marshaling studies to make their case, and most of them acknowledge that they cannot say for sure what would happen if schools stopped requiring the test.
According to Ms. Theis-Alvarez, the proposed change would be “likely to increase the confusion and expense for candidates that is associated with navigating the law school admissions process,” which could hurt first-generation college students more than others.
The Supreme Court could soon inject more uncertainty. The court appears poised to hand down a decision that would jeopardize affirmative action in higher education, which could decrease the representation of Black and Latino students.
But when it comes to diversity, LSAT scores are only a part of the puzzle. Mr. Adams of the bar association said that law school accreditation should focus less on restrictions for applicants, and more on the schools’ outcomes, like the share of students who ultimately pass the bar.
And Ms. Fish pointed out that once students graduate and start working as lawyers, their standardized test scores matter a lot less. “I’m not saying this is a horrible test,” she added. “But I also understand that there is more to me than just my LSAT score.”
It was back to the drawing board for the American Bar Association’s Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar as it once again voted to make law school test-optional.
In a nearly unanimous vote—with one opposed—the Council, during its meeting in Phoenix on Friday, voted to send Standards 501 and 503 back to the ABA’s House of Delegates, who will meet next in Denver in August.
Admission applications to community isolation facilities and the free nucleic acid testing service will be ceased, while the COVID-19 vaccination programme will enter a new phase.
With the epidemic situation entering a new stage as well as a new mode adopted for management and handling of the epidemic, the HKSAR government has announced adjustments to community isolation facilities' admission application, COVID-19 vaccination programme, and the free nucleic acid testing service.
See below for the detailed updates.
Community isolation facilities admission application to cease from 22 February 2023
The transitional arrangements of voluntary admission to community isolation facilities (CIFs) for Hong Kong residents who test positive of COVID-19 will last until 28 February 2023. As confinees can stay at the CIF for up to seven days, the last date for admission application would be on 21 February 2023.
Hotlines for transfer arrangement set up by the Fire Services Department for recently-infected persons who need to stay at CIFs will also cease operations from 22 February 2023.
The same arrangement is applicable to the holding centres managed by the Social Welfare Department for residents of residential care homes who test positive.
ALSO READ: No more quarantine for COVID infected patients in Hong Kong starting 30 January 2023
COVID-19 vaccination programme enters a new phase at the end of February
Since September last year, the Government has gradually consolidated the service network involving collaboration with private medical organisations, making good use of different venues to set up Community Vaccination Stations (CVSs) or Private Clinic COVID-19 Vaccination Stations (PCVSs) at locations with convenient transportation or high patronage, and providing vaccination service with more than one kind of vaccine at one vaccination venue.
In light of the latest epidemic developments and demand for vaccination, the Hong Kong Government will make further adjustments to the vaccination services and venues.
Starting from 27 February 2023, the COVID-19 Vaccination Stations in public hospitals (HCVSs) in Ruttonjee Hospital will be relocated to Tang Shiu Kin Hospital, where vaccination service with the BioNTech vaccine (ancestral strain vaccine/bivalent vaccine) or the Sinvoac vaccine will be provided.
The Community Vaccination Centres (CVC) located at the Osman Ramju Sadick Memorial Sports Centre, the MTR Tsing Yi Station, and Millennium City 5 will operate until noon on 28 February 2023 and be closed afterwards. The vaccination service of the paediatric and toddler formulations of the BioNTech vaccines at the Children Community Vaccination Centre (CCVC) of the Osman Ramju Sadick Memorial Sports Centre will be provided by Yan Chai Hospital COVID-19 Vaccination Station starting from 1 March 2023.
After the closure of the above three CVCs, the vaccination programme will take public and private medical facilities as the prime vaccination venues under the new mode of operation. Other vaccination venues will continue to provide vaccination service for Hong Kong residents, including:
- Community Vaccination Stations (CVSs),
- Private Clinic COVID-19 Vaccination Stations (PCVSs),
- COVID-19 Vaccination Stations in public hospitals (HCVSs),
- Designated general outpatient clinics of the Hospital Authority,
- Elderly Health Centres,
- Maternal and Child Health Centres and Student Health Service Centres of the Department of Health (DH), and
- Some 1,000 private doctors providing COVID-19 vaccination service.
Meanwhile, starting from 1 March 2023, all CVSs, HCVSs and CCVCs will have the same opening hours from 10am to 6pm on their days of operation. Click here to see channels for COVID-19 vaccination starting from 1 March.
Adjustments to nucleic acid testing service starting 1 March 2023
As all compulsory nucleic acid testing requirements have been completely lifted, the Government will suitably reduce the number of community testing centres and community testing stations (CTC/CTSs), and cease the provision of the free nucleic acid testing service at CTC/CTSs starting from 1 March 2023.
However, some members of the public still need to undergo nucleic acid tests due to travel or personal needs, since certain countries and regions still require persons arriving from Hong Kong to undergo pre-departure tests. In this case, a total of 21 CTC/CTSs with higher usage will be retained to continue to provide self-paid nucleic acid testing service for citizens who need to obtain test results (such as certifications for work or travelling purposes). The remaining 64 existing CTC/CTSs will cease operation from the same day, with relevant venues to be reverted to their original uses in a progressive manner.
The opening hours of the 21 CTC/CTSs will be adjusted to 10am to 8pm every day while they will be closed from 1.30pm to 2pm/2.30pm for deep cleaning and disinfection. Unless requested otherwise by members of the public, throat swabs will be used for self-paid testing services. Citizens may also opt for other specimen collection methods including taking nasal swabs, nasopharyngeal swabs or combined nasal and throat swabs according to their own needs, such as for meeting the entry requirements of their travel destinations.
Apart from those 21 CTC/CTSs, a rapid nucleic acid testing centre operating 24 hours a day has been set up at Hong Kong International Airport to enable travellers to undergo self-paid tests prior to departure and obtain results within two hours.
In addition, starting from 1 March 2023, the nucleic acid test requirement applicable to staff and visitors of public hospitals, residential care homes for the elderly (RCHEs) and the residential care homes for persons with disabilities (RCHDs), as well as residents of residential care homes (RCHs) will be replaced by rapid antigen tests (RATs).
Visitors to public hospitals and RCHs are still required to undergo an RAT within 24 hours prior to their visit, and obtain a negative result before they can visit. Clinical staff of public hospitals, as well as staff and residents of RCHs, should also continue to undergo an RAT once a day.
Images / Shutterstock
© Snigdha Choudhury | India.com News Desk Supreme Court To Hear Plea Seeking Rules For Menstrual Pain Leave On Feb 24.
New Delhi: The Tamil Nadu government has moved the Supreme Court (SC), the apex court, challenging the validity of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Examination (NEET) for admissions in medical courses in colleges across the nation, alleging that the single window common test is violative of the principle of federalism. In a lawsuit, filed under Article 131 of the Constitution, the state government has alleged that the principle of federalism, which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, is being violated by examinations like NEET as it takes away the autonomy of states to make decisions regarding education.
The plea, filed through lawyer Amit Anand Tiwari, said the validity of NEET was upheld in 2020 by the apex court on grounds that it was required to curb the evil of unfair practises such as granting admission based on paying capacity of candidates, charging capitation fee, large-scale malpractices, exploitation of students, profiteering, and commercialisation, news agency PTI reported.
However, such grounds are not applicable in the case of admissions to government seats and the reasoning of the judgment is applicable only to private college seats, it added, adding the verdict upholding the NEET does not bind a state in so far as admissions to government seats are concerned.
The suit seeks a decree "declaring that Sections 14 of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020 and the National Commission of Homeopathy Act, 2020, Regulations 9 and 9A of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, Regulations I(2), I(5) and II of the BDS Course Regulations, 2007 respectively are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, violate federalism and therefore void".
The NEET is a pre-medical entrance test for admissions in undergraduate medical courses such as MBBS and BDS and also for post-graduate courses in government and private medical colleges.
College admission tests are becoming a thing of the past.
More than 80% of U.S. colleges and universities do not require applicants to take standardized tests—like the SAT or the ACT. That proportion of institutions with test-optional policies has more than doubled since the spring of 2020.
And for the fall of 2023, some 85 institutions won't even consider standardized test scores when reviewing applications. That includes the entire University of California system.
Currently, only 4% of colleges that use the Common Application system require a standardized test such as the SAT or the ACT for admission.
Even before the pandemic, more than 1,000 colleges and universities had either test-optional or so-called "test-blind" policies. But as the pandemic unfolded, more than 600 additional institutions followed suit.
At the time, many college officials noted that health concerns and other logistics associated with test-taking made them want to reduce student stress and risk. Concerns about racial equity also factored into many decisions.
Other institutions are what some call "test-flexible," allowing applicants to submit test scores from Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate exams in place of the SAT or ACT.
Tests under fire
For many years, advocates and scholars have fought against the use of standardized tests, in general, and for college admission.
One critique is simple: Standardized tests aren't that useful at measuring a student's potential. Research has repeatedly shown that a student's high school GPA is a better predictor of college success than standardized test scores such as the SAT or ACT.
But there are deeper issues too, involving race and equity.
The development and use of standardized tests in higher education came out of the eugenics movement. That movement claimed—and then used misleading and manufactured evidence to support the idea—that people of different races had different innate abilities.
"Standardized tests have become the most effective racist weapon ever devised to objectively degrade Black and Brown minds and legally exclude their bodies from prestigious schools," according to Ibram X. Kendi, director of the Center for Anti-Racist Research at Boston University.
Kendi is not alone in highlighting the historic links between standardized tests and discrimination. Joseph A. Soares, editor of "The Scandal of Standardized Tests: Why We Need to Drop the SAT and ACT," has documented "[t]he original ugly eugenic racist intention behind the SAT, aimed at excluding Jews from the Ivy League." He says that goal has now "been realized by biased test-question selection algorithms that systemically discriminate against Blacks." In his work, Soares draws attention to the practice of evaluating pilot questions and removing from the final test version questions on which Black students did better than white students.
My colleague Joshua Goodman has found that Black and Latino students who take the SAT or the ACT are less likely than white or Asian students to take it a second time. They perform less well, which contributes to disproportionately low representation of college students from low-income and racial minority backgrounds.
Those factors—as well as a lawsuit arguing discrimination based on test performance—were behind the May 2020 decision by the University of California's Board of Regents to discontinue using SAT and ACT scores in admissions decisions.
Economics of higher education
Colleges and universities tend to seek applicants with good grades and other achievements. They are often seeking a diverse pool from which to build their classes. Colleges that did not require standardized tests in applications for students arriving in fall 2021 "generally received more applicants, better academically qualified applicants, and more diverse pools of applicants." That's according to Bob Schaeffer, executive director of FairTest, an advocacy group working to "end the misuses and flaws of testing practices" in higher education and in the K-12 sector.
In addition, birth rates are declining, and the number of 18-year-olds seeking to enter college is decreasing. Many institutions are seeking to make it easier for people to apply to college.
As a result of these factors, I expect to see high school students begin to choose where to apply based at least in part on whether colleges require standardized tests, consider them or ignore them entirely. According to U.S. News & World Report, most of the colleges in the U.S. that still require test scores are located in Southern states, with the highest count in the state of Florida.
The testing business
The test-taking business, including preparatory classes, tutoring and the costs of taking the tests themselves, is a multibillion-dollar industry.
As more institutions reduce their attention to tests, all those businesses feel pressure to reinvent themselves and make their services useful. The College Board, which produces the SAT and other tests, has recently tried to make its flagship test more "student-friendly," as the organization put it. In January 2022 it released an online SAT that is supposed to be easier for test sites to administer and easier for students to take.
In recent conversations I have had in research into higher education policies, admission directors at selective universities tell me that standardized test scores have become an optional component of a portfolio of activities, awards and other material, that applicants have at their disposal when completing their college applications.
Institutions that have gone test-blind have already decided that the SAT is no longer part of the equation. Others may join them.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Citation: The SAT and ACT are less important than you might think, says professor (2023, January 26) retrieved 19 February 2023 from https://phys.org/news/2023-01-sat-important-professor.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
