Wednesday, December 4, 2013
From the Chronicle of Higher Education:
The American Bar Association announced on Wednesday that its accreditation committee had censured Rutgers University at Camden’s School of Law for violating a standard pertaining to the use of admissions tests.
In a news release, the association said the committee had found that the law school, without first obtaining a variance from the association, had operated an admissions program that permitted some applicants to use a standardized graduate-admissions test to gain admission without taking the Law School Admission Test. The association said the law school subsequently qualified for such a variance but suspended the admissions program in question.
The committee fined the law school $25,000 and required the school to post the censure on its website for a year.
Rutgers-Camden law dean Rayman Solomon acknowledged the law school was negligent in failing disclose the program to the ABA after 2009, when ABA administrators sent a memo to all law schools clarifying that they had to provide evidence of the validity of any other test beyond the LSAT or seek a formal variance allowing them to use a different admission test. But he said the school was not hiding the program and discussed it with ABA administrators twice before that memo was issued.
“We believed we were in compliance prior to 2009,” Solomon said. “We obviously believed were in compliance after 2009, but we were negligent there.”
Here is the news release. I have to wonder why, in reality, the LSAT is a requirement. Why can’t law schools use other criteria? For example, why can't a law school rely on the g.p.a.s from rigorous schools and student leadership experiences?