shifty_eyed wrote:Oh man, I could definitely tell that answer was given by a dude who writes LSAT questions.
Haha, I know what you mean. Something about this test...
Samara wrote:Thanks to you and Dr. Harris for doing this! Very interesting.
Law schools have recognized that certain groups of people are underrepresented. LSAC has shown that certain groups of people perform more poorly on the LSAT, even when controlled for economic status. The point Dr. Harris seems to be dancing around is that even the best crafted test discriminates against those people and such discrimination or bias is not necessarily something that should be "corrected." I think I agree with him. I would argue that the obstacles underrepresented groups face persist throughout society and are not idiosyncratic to the LSAT or law school. "Correcting the bias" in the LSAT would thus treat the symptom, not the illness, and degrade its overall predictive value. Luckily, law schools are able to provide a narrow (and probably still imperfect) solution through the URM boost.
I think that's exactly what Dr. Harris is saying.
The only real challenge to the LSAT of which I'm aware is the Shutlz/Zedeck "Looking Beyond the LSAT (LinkRemoved)" project. When studying the validity of their test (which is apparently intended to predict lawyerly "effectiveness") they found that it did not have any racial or ethnic gap
, but it had "few significant correlations" with 1L GPA. Some of their predictors even had negative correlations with 1L GPA (p64, PDF