About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

82 Tex. L. Rev. 975 (2003-2004)
The LSAT, Law School Exams, and Meritocracy: The Surprising and Undertheorized Role of Test-Taking Speed

handle is hein.journals/tlr82 and id is 991 raw text is: The LSAT, Law School Exams, and Meritocracy: The Surprising and Undertheorized Role of Test- Taking Speed William D. Henderson* Within the field of psychometrics, it is widely acknowledged that test-taking speed and reasoning ability are separate abilities with little or no correlation to each other. The LSAT is a univariate test designed to measure reasoning ability. Test-taking speed is assumed to be an ancillary variable with a negligible effect on candidate scores. This Article explores the possibility that test-taking speed is a variable common to both the LSAT and actual law school exams. This commonality is important because it may serve to increase the predictive validity of the LSA T. The author obtained data from a national and a regional law school and followed the methodology of a typical LSAT validity study, with one important exception: student performance was disaggregated into three distinct testing methods with varying degrees of time pressure: (1) in-class exams, (2) take-home exams, and (3) papers. Consistent with the hypothesis, the data showed that the LSAT was a relatively robust predictor of in-class exams and a relatively weak predictor of take-home exams and papers. In contrast, undergraduate GPA (UGPA) was a relatively stable predictor of all three testing methods. The major implication of this study is that the current emphasis on time- pressured law school exams increases the relative importance of the LSA T as an admission criterion. Further, because the performance gap between white and minority students tends to be larger on the LSAT than UGPA (the other important numerical admissions criteria), heavy reliance on time-pressured law school exams is likely to have the indirect effect of making it more difficult for Associate Professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law-Bloomington. I would like to thank the Law School Admission Council (LSAC), which provided funding for this project. However, the opinions and conclusions contained in this Article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the LSAC. Deborah L. Schnipke of Virtual Psychometrics, LLC, provided invaluable assistance in the preparation and analysis of the data set. Michael Heise, William Kidder, James Lindgren, James Gillespie, Emile Karafiol, Ken Dau- Schmidt, David Snyder, Laura Beth Nielsen, Jeffrey Stake, Matt Hinerfeld, and Eugene Kontrovich provided valuable comments at various stages of this project. The analysis also benefited from workshops at the American Bar Foundation (ABF) and Chicago-Kent College of Law. I would like to thank Harold Krent and Katherine Baker, who made it possible for me to work full-time on this project during my visiting appointment at Chicago-Kent. Finally, I would also like to thank the deans, registrars, and various support staff at the two law schools that participated in this study. Although they remain anonymous, see infra note 113, they were an indispensable part of making this project possible.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most