I am a nervous wreck right now. In June I will take the Law School Admissions Test, more commonly known by its abbreviation – the LSAT. For those of you smart enough to avoid this test, it consists of logical arguments, reading comprehension and logic “games,” which aren’t nearly as fun as they sound. Simply put, the test is a daunting task that requires weeks, if not months, of preparation to succeed on.

Fortunately, I am not alone in this endeavor. My roommate and I have started taking a course that guarantees that we will be able to improve our scores in time for the big day. This sort of service comes at a price, of course – generally upwards of $1,000, which many students cannot afford to pay.

A number of studies have found that those who take preparatory classes for standardized tests are likely to outperform those who do not. Many educational theorists have noted this in explaining socioeconomic disparities in standardized testing results: That is, rich kids do better than poor kids, on average. These tests have become more indications of the tools available to students and less of each student’s aptitude and capability. Such noteworthy findings have led several leading institutions, like Wake Forest University and the College of the Holy Cross, to allow for optional SAT score submission.

The same logic should be applied to graduate entrance exams, but it isn’t. For most law schools, the two most important factors for admissions are GPA and LSAT scores, and in many cases admissions committees place a higher emphasis on the latter. This has presented me with a moral dilemma that I am still wrestling with: While I am fortunate enough to be able to afford the necessary preparation to perform well on the LSAT, there are countless other students who are just as qualified as I am to enter law school and lack these tools.

I have reflected on the ways in which I could advocate for change; while the most obvious and radical one would be to advocate for optional LSAT submissions, I understand that this is unrealistic in the face of such entrenched dependence upon this one score. I do, however, have another suggestion that could precipitate a more beneficial result and level the playing field.

I propose that that Georgetown introduce not-for-credit courses offering graduate-school test preparation for students who could not otherwise afford it. Much like the Georgetown University Student Association Summer Fellows program, students who met certain financial requirements could register for the course and take it with no fees required.

This could be made feasible in one of two ways: The first would be for the university to subsidize the cost of an existing preparatory class. This option may be unrealistic, however, because the test-prep company would likely not be willing to lose class seats to non-paying customers and the current financial situation of the university would make the subsidy of such a program a significant burden.

Another, more practical recommendation would provide a similar service and contribute to the university’s pursuit of social justice. I propose that recent graduates, Georgetown graduate students or current undergraduates who have taken the test successfully be given the opportunity to teach such a class for students. Those who meet certain criteria in addition to qualifying for a work-study program would be the prime candidates.

Everyone deserves a fair chance at their dreams, and the legal profession should not allow for unequal barriers for entrance to law school to endure. As a Jesuit institution that strives to create the most socially just environment for its community, this idea is in keeping with the traditions we aim to uphold.

Tim Swenson is a junior in the College, a cadet in Army ROTC and GUSA chief of staff. He can be reached at swensonthehoya.com. Closing Arguments appears every other Tuesday.

To send a letter to the editor on a recent campus issue or Hoya story or a viewpoint on any topic, contact opinionthehoya.com. Letters should not exceed 300 words, and viewpoints should be between 600 to 800 words.

Comments are closed.