In 1994, Drs. Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray wrote a book known as “The Bell Curve,” which explored the social phenomena of varying intelligence among different groups. The book was met with virulent objection by certain minorities as nothing more than an articulate racial slur.

Dr. Richard Sander, a law professor at the University of California, couples omitting LSAT (Law School Aptitude Test) to the likewise stunting effect on success in law schools with lowered affirmative action, race based, admissions standards. In explaining the obvious academic disparities between affirmative action students and its non-affirmative action counterpart, Dr. Sander asserts that the first gap is poor undergraduate scores (grade point average), coupled with a below average score on the LSAT.

The American Bar Association, a bastion for liberal thought (all in the name of diversity), conjured up an equipoise, i.e., no more LSAT, to counter the less than sterling success of affirmation action students (Barack Obama, being a rare exception).

However, studies show that a poor undergraduate GPA and low LSAT scores have a deleterious effect on success in law schools, especially first tier schools, e.g., Harvard, Yale, etc. Using a 1,000-point scale, the average minority student LSAT score was 130 to 170 points below the normal acceptable admission score.

The grades of poorly performing minority students drop significantly, in relative terms, from the first year of law school to the third, thus exacerbating the students’ hopes of academic success with a curriculum of which he is not equipped to intellectually parse.

Dr. Sanders, in his findings, makes no judgements about preferences, yet he does object to a “theory of social utility” i.e., accepting, graduating, promoting, appointing, or in any way advancing a person solely on purely social criteria. It has also become obvious, and patently unfair, to the unfortunately unqualified, albeit undeservedly receiving favor, to appease some balletic liberal scheme that only hastens failure for the recipient.

Exempli gratia: Suppose, say (for the sake of ethnic respect) a non-white person and a white person were both candidates for Princeton Law School, both from affluent professional families. The white candidate has higher LSAT scores and undergraduate GPA than the non-white candidate. They both desire to be attorneys.

Here is but a preludial to a much longer (liberal’s) apologia of the law school’s decision to admit the less qualified non-white candidate rather than the white candidate. I paraphrase: “Choosing the less qualified non-white candidate will provide more socially - value added - accomplishments and will expand the next generation of minority lawyers. (Only) by doing this can society attain equality, especially at the higher socioeconomic levels.”

Can the sanctity of individualism, self-determination, or equal treatment within a just society be compromised and possibly even permanently jeopardized for the collective needs of certain groups?

Forgiving student loans comes to mind.

(1) comment

nc91

I am a physician. When I took the Medical College Aptitude Test (MCAT) I scored above the 90th percentile. When I took the LSAT my scores on several sections were very variable thus questioning the reliability of the test. But my scores on the logic games section were consistent -ZERO. From looking at the various expensive courses available I concluded that this section is just a complicated game with NO relevance to the study of law. The ABA, LSAC, prep courses and the law schools have been running a very profitable scam for years. I do not know why the ABA has changed its mind about the LSAT but I think it has nothing to do with diversity. Why not give a REAL law course as the entrance exam?

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.